Graham Greene reviews

Graham Greene (1904 to 1991) was an English writer and journalist who came to dominate his age. Over a 60-year career he wrote over 25 novels, novellas, scores of short stories, masses of journalism, and was heavily involved in film, adapting many of his novels for the screen (such as the classic ‘Brighton Rock’), or converting screenplays into novels (as in the case of the wildly successful ‘The Third Man’).

He dominated the British literary scene of the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s, producing a steady stream of high quality fictions, often set in wartorn troublespots (the Congo, Vietnam, Haiti) thus doubling up as a kind of foreign correspondent for the literary world. By sheer dogged determination, he turned his personal demons and suicidal depression into a compelling worldview, combining despair with a relentless focus on the seedy aspects of human existence, all clothed in a personal brand of nihilistic Roman Catholicism, which critics came to call ‘Greeneland’.

Most of his books are good, some are very good, but I’m not sure any individual one is great: the closest one is ‘The Heart of the Matter’ which is often held up as his masterpiece but which George Orwell rightly ridiculed for its suburban Angst and Catholic self-dramatisation. ‘The Unquiet American’ may be his best straight novel, with ‘The End of The Affair’ packing a genuinely terrifying punch right at the end. ‘A Burnt Out Case’ was a pleasure to read.

Being strongly allergic to the Catholic despair which characterises almost everything he wrote, I prefer his surprisingly funny comedies, such as ‘Our Man In Havana’ and ‘Travels With My Aunt’.

Fiction

  • The Man Within (1929) One of the worst books I’ve ever read, a wretchedly immature farrago set in a vaguely described 18th century about a cowardly smuggler who betrays his fellows to the Excise men then flees to the cottage of a pure and innocent young woman who he falls in love with before his pathetic inaction leads to her death. Drivel.
  • The Name of Action (1930) (repudiated by author, never republished)
  • Rumour at Nightfall (1931) (repudiated by author, never republished)
  • Stamboul Train (1932) A motley cast of characters find out each others’ secrets and exploit each other on the famous Orient Express rattling across Europe, climaxing in the execution of one of the passengers, a political exile, in an obscure rail junction, and all wound up with a cynical business deal in Istanbul.
  • It’s a Battlefield (1934) London: a working class man awaits his death sentence for murder while a cast of seedy characters, including a lecherous H.G. Wells figure, betray each other and agonise about their pointless lives.
  • England Made Me (1935) Stockholm: financier and industrialist Krogh hires a pretty Englishwoman Kate Farrant to be his PA/lover. She gets him to employ her shiftless brother Anthony who, after only a few days, starts spilling secrets to the seedy journalist Minty, and so is bumped off by Krogh’s henchman, Hall.
  • A Gun for Sale (1936) England: After assassinating a European politician and sparking mobilisation for war, hitman Raven pursues the lecherous middle man who paid him with hot money to a Midlands town, where he gets embroiled with copper’s girl, Anne, before killing the middle man and the wicked arms merchant who was behind the whole deal, and being shot dead himself.
  • Brighton Rock (1938) After Kite is murdered, 17 year-old Pinkie Brown takes over leadership of one of Brighton’s gangs, a razor-happy psychopath who is also an unthinking Catholic tormented by frustrated sexuality. He marries a 16 year-old waitress (who he secretly despises) to stop her squealing on the gang, before being harried to a grisly death.
  • The Confidential Agent (1939) D. the agent for a foreign power embroiled in a civil war, tries and fails to secure a contract for British coal to be sent to his side. He flees the police and unfounded accusations of murder, has an excursion to a Midlands mining district where he fails to persuade the miners to go on strike out of solidarity for his (presumably communist) side, is caught by the police, put on trial, then helped to escape across country to a waiting ship, accompanied by the woman half his age who has fallen in love with him.
  • The Power and the Glory (1940) Mexico: An unnamed whisky priest, the only survivor of the revolutionary communists’ pogrom against the Catholic hierarchy, blunders from village to village feeling very sorry for himself and jeopardising lots of innocent peasants while bringing them hardly any help until he is caught and shot.
  • The Ministry of Fear (1943) Hallucinatory psychological fantasia masquerading as an absurdist thriller set in London during the Blitz when a man still reeling from mercy-killing his terminally ill wife gets caught up with a wildly improbable Nazi spy ring.
  • The Heart of The Matter (1948) Through a series of unfortunate events, Henry Scobie, the ageing colonial Assistant Commissioner of Police in Freetown, Sierra Leone, finds himself torn between love of his wife and of his mistress, spied on by colleagues and slowly corrupted by a local Syrian merchant, until life becomes intolerable and – as a devout Catholic – he knowingly damns himself for eternity by committing suicide. Whether you agree with its Catholic premises or not, this feels like a genuinely ‘great’ novel for the completeness of its conception and the thoroughness of its execution.
  • The Third Man (1949) The novella which formed the basis for the screenplay of the famous film starring Orson Welles. Given its purely preparatory nature, this is a gripping and wonderfully-written tale, strong on atmosphere and intrigue and mercifully light on Greene’s Catholic preachiness.
  • The End of The Affair (1951) Snobbish writer Maurice Bendrix has an affair with Sarah, the wife of his neighbour on Clapham Common, the dull civil servant, Henry Miles. After a V1 bomb lands on the house where they are illicitly meeting, half burying Bendrix, Sarah breaks off the affair and refuses to see him. Only after setting a detective on her, does Bendrix discover Sarah thought he had been killed in the bombing and prayed to God, promising to end their affair and be ‘good’ if only he was allowed to live – only to see him stumbling in through the wrecked doorway, from which point she feels duty bound to God to keep her word. She sickens and dies of pneumonia like many a 19th century heroine, but not before the evidence begins to mount up that she was, in fact, a genuine saint. Preposterous for most of its length, it becomes genuinely spooky at the end.
  • The Unquiet American (1955) Set in Vietnam as the French are losing their grip on the country, jaded English foreign correspondent, Thomas Fowler, reacts very badly to fresh-faced, all-American agent Alden Pyle, who both steals his Vietnamese girlfriend and is naively helping a rebel general and his private army in the vain hope they can form a non-communist post-colonial government. So Fowler arranges for Pyle to be assassinated. The adultery and anti-Americanism are tiresome, but the descriptions of his visits to the front line are gripping.
  • Loser Takes All (1955) Charming comic novella recounting the mishaps of accountant Bertram who is encouraged to get married at a swanky hotel in Monte Carlo by his wealthy boss who then doesn’t arrive to pick up the bill, as he’d promised to – forcing Bertram to dabble in gambling at the famous Casino and becoming so obsessed with winning that he almost loses his wife before the marriage has even begun.
  • Our Man In Havana (1958) Comedy about an unassuming vacuum cleaner salesman, Jim Wormold, living in Havana, Cuba, who is improbably recruited for British intelligence and, when he starts to be paid, feels compelled to manufacture ‘information’ from made-up ‘agents’. All very farcical until the local security services and then ‘the other side’ start taking an interest, bugging his phone, burgling his flat and then trying to bump him off.
  • A Burnt-Out Case (1960) Tragedy. Famous architect Querry travels to the depths of the Congo, running away from his European fame and mistress, and begins to find peace working with the local priests and leprosy doctor, when the unhappy young wife of a local factory owner accuses him of seducing her and fathering her child, prompting her husband to shoot Querry dead.
  • The Comedians (1966) Tragedy. Brown returns to run his hotel in Port-au-Prince, in a Haiti writhing under the brutal regime of Papa Doc Duvalier, and to resume his affair with the ambassador’s wife, Martha. A minister commits suicide in the hotel pool; Brown is beaten up by the Tontons Macoute; he tries to help a sweet old American couple convert the country to vegetarianism. In the final, absurd sequence he persuades the obvious con-man ‘major’ Jones to join the pathetic ‘resistance’ (12 men with three rusty guns), motivated solely by the jealous (and false) conviction that Jones is having an affair with his mistress. They are caught, escape, and Brown is forced to flee to the neighbouring Dominican Republic where the kindly Americans get him a job as assistant to the funeral director he had first met on the ferry to Haiti.
  • Travels With My Aunt (1969) Comedy. Unmarried, middle-aged, retired bank manager Henry Pullman meets his Aunt Augusta at the funeral of his mother, and is rapidly drawn into her unconventional world, accompanying her on the Orient Express to Istanbul and then on a fateful trip to south America, caught up in her colourful stories of foreign adventures and exotic lovers till he finds himself right in the middle of an uncomfortably dangerous situation.
  • The Honorary Consul (1973) Tragedy. Dr Eduardo Plarr accidentally assists in the kidnapping of his friend, the alcoholic, bumbling ‘honorary consul’ to a remote city on the border of Argentina, Charley Fortnum, with whose ex-prostitute wife he happens to be having an affair. When he is asked to go and treat Fortnum, who’s been injured, Plarr finds himself also taken prisoner by the rebels and dragged into lengthy Greeneish discussions about love and religion and sin and redemption etc, while they wait for the authorities to either pay the ransom the rebels have demanded or storm their hideout. It doesn’t end well.
  • The Human Factor (1978) Maurice Castle lives a quiet, suburban life with his African wife, Sarah, commuting daily to his dull office job in a branch of British Security except that, we learn half way through the book, he is a double agent passing secrets to the Russians. Official checks on a leak from his sector lead to the improbable ‘liquidation’ of an entirely innocent colleague which prompts Castle to make a panic-stricken plea to his Soviet controllers to be spirited out of the country. And so he is, arriving safely in Moscow. But to the permanent separation with the only person he holds dear in the world and who he was, all along, working on behalf of – his beloved Sarah. Bleak and heart-breaking.
  • Monsignor Quixote (1982) Father Quixote is unwillingly promoted monsignor and kicked out of his cosy parish, taking to the roads of Spain with communist ex-mayor friend, Enrique ‘Sancho’ Zancas, in an old jalopy they jokingly nickname Rocinante, to experience numerous adventures loosely based on his fictional forebear, Don Quixote, all the while debating Greene’s great Victorian theme, the possibility of a doubting – an almost despairing – Catholic faith.
  • The Captain and The Enemy (1988) 12-year-old Victor Baxter is taken out of his boarding school by a ‘friend’ of his father’s, the so-called Captain, who carries him off to London to live with his girlfriend, Liza. Many years later Victor, a grown man, comes across his youthful account of life in this strange household when Liza dies in a road accident, and he sets off on an adult pilgrimage to find the Captain in Central America, a quest which – when he tells him of Liza’s death – prompts the old man to one last – futile and uncharacteristic – suicidal gesture.

Short stories

  • Twenty-One Stories (1954) Generally very short stories, uneven in quality and mostly focused on wringing as much despair about the human condition as possible using thin characters who come to implausibly violent endings – except for three short funny tales.

Travel

  • The Lawless Roads (1939) Greene travels round Mexico and hates it, hates its people and its culture, the poverty, the food, the violence and despair, just about managing to admire the idealised Catholicism which is largely a product of his own insistent mind, and a few heroic priests-on-the-run from the revolutionary authorities.

Biography

My essays

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The formula

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

Jeeves and Bertie’s eternal battle over clothes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In previous collections Jeeves has interfered to stop Bertie wearing:

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

In this volume Jeeves triumphs in the matter of:

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

Holiday battles

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

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

Psychology

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

1. Jeeves and the Impending Doom (1926)

Bertie rescues a politician from a swan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The Inferiority Complex of Old Sippy (1926)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inferiority complex

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

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

The hot water bottle fiasco.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cora performs a few songs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As usual, complete triumph for Jeeves.

5. Jeeves and the Dog McIntosh (October 1929)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Jeeves and the Kid Clementina (January 1930)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Kiss (1929)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Indian Summer of an Uncle (March 1930)

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Piggy?’
‘Maudie!’

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

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

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

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

11. The Ordeal of Young Tuppy (April 1930)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cast

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

Bertie’s character

As Aunt Agatha puts it, addressing Bertie:

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

And again:

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

And:

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

As Bertie himself puts it.

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

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

And:

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

All compared with Jeeves’s omniscience:

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

Slang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bertie’s cheerful philistinism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memorable moments

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

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

The stupid narrator

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

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

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

P.G. Wodehouse and Sherlock Holmes

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

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

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

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

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

Alas, the times

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

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

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

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

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

Freud

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

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


Related links

Related reviews

P.S. Plans

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

Three Act Tragedy by Agatha Christie (1935)

‘You’re a thundering good chap, Charles, but you do let your imagination run away with you.’
(The upper class milieu: Sir Bartholomew Strange addressing Sir Charles Cartwright in Chapter 3 of ‘Three Act Tragedy’)

‘You believe in me?’ said Sir Charles. He was moved.
‘Yes, yes, yes. We’re going to get at the truth. You and I together.’
‘And Satterthwaite.’
‘Of course, and Mr. Satterthwaite,’ said Egg without interest.
(Young Lady Egg Gore flirting with old Sir Charles Cartwright, Chapter 12)

‘You must forgive us badgering you like this. But, you see, we feel that there must be something, if only we could get at it.’
(Classic expression of the frustration and bewilderment expressed by the investigators in all Christie’s novels, Chapter 13)

‘My God,’ burst out Sir Charles. ‘It’s a nightmare – the whole thing is utterly incomprehensible.’
(The same sense of complete perplexity expressed in all Christie’s novels as they approach their climax, Chapter 25)

‘Think! With thought, all problems can be solved.’
(The core of Poirot’s method, Chapter 23)

He was the sort of gentle creaking gate that would have lived to be ninety.
(Sweet old Reverend Babbington, Chapter 4)

‘Three Act Tragedy’ is the ninth Hercule Poirot novel (there were 2 non-novel books – a collection of short stories and the novelisation of a play by a different author – so strictly speaking it’s the 11th Poirot book).

Previous ones have contained passing mockery of the English police, solicitors and other professions or, alternatively, have used a strongly themed setting (the obvious ones being the train-bound stories ‘The Mystery of Blue Train’, 1928, and ‘Murder on the Orient Express’, 1934).

This one, as the title suggests, is dominated by theatrical metaphors and comparisons. The central protagonist is a former star of the London theatre, Sir Charles Cartwright who, very amusingly, treats every setting as a Stage on which he frequently plays one of his Famous Parts, from the Hearty Sailor to the Intrepid Detective. All of which gives the entire narrative a kind of theatrical, stagey feel which, seeing as the whole thing is preposterous bunkum, makes it all the more enjoyable. Leading up to Poirot’s clever explanation of the mystery which divides it, as per the title, into three acts, and allows him to conclude with a flourish, right at the end:

‘It is nothing – nothing. A tragedy in three acts – and now the curtain has fallen.’
(Chapter 26)

Talking of Poirot, though, the book is notable for One Big Thing which is that he very much takes a back seat. He is, for random, unexplained reasons, present at the first murder, of the harmless vicar at Sir Charles Cartwright’s dinner party. And he bumps into Mr Satterthwaite in a public park in Monte Carlo just long enough to discuss the case and then, completely gratuitously (obviously because Christie thought it was about time she did so) gives us a potted account of his life story.

But then he disappears from the narrative. All the running i.e. the discussing theories behind the two murders, and going off to interview witnesses and related characters, is carried out by the triumvirate of Cartwright, Satterthwaite and Egg. It is only when they are all back at the Crow’s Nest, in the very Ship Room where Babbington’s death occurred, and are in the middle of a ‘conference’ to pool their latest findings that there’s an unexpected knock on the door and Poirot pokes his head round.

Magically, he knows that they are having just such a ‘conference’ and accurately predicts what they’ve discovered up to now and so are thinking. He admits that when they talked here in this room, weeks earlier, later in the evening of Babbington’s death, he thought Sir Charles’s theory that it was murder was just theatrical hyperbole. But Sir Bartholomew’s death changes everything and he has returned to apologise.

‘And so, Sir Charles, I have come up to you to apologise – to say I, Hercule Poirot, was wrong, and to ask you to admit me to your councils. (Chapter 15)

Cartwright and Satterthwaite are delighted, though all three men notice that Egg is reluctant. She had been hoping, via the investigation, to get closer to her hero, Sir Charles. But after a moment’s hesitation she has to acquiesce, and Poirot is on the team!

But he promises to take a back seat, not to get involved in any of the active sleuthing, and act in a purely advisory or consultative capacity.

So ‘Three Act Tragedy’ is by way of being another of Christie’s experiments with the form or narrative of the detective story – one in which the famous detective appears but is, for long stretches, invisible and uninvolved, while other characters dominate the narrative and conduct most of the footwork.

Plot summary

  • Cornwall
  • Monte Carlo
  • Yorkshire
  • London

Sir Charles Cartwright is a larger-than-life former actor; two year who has retired to the English Riviera where has had a luxury mansion constructed overlooking the sea (pretentiously named the ‘Crow’s Nest’).

House party Here he invites twelves guests to join him for a house party, half of whom have made the trip down from London, half who are locals. Rather randomly, one of the guests is the famous detective Hercule Poirot. When Cartwright’s friend Sir Bartholomew ‘Tollie’ Strange learns about Poirot attending, he jokes that they better watch out because murder seems to follow the little Belgian everywhere.

The vicar dies The party assembles and haven’t even sat down to dinner, are still enjoying cocktails in the ‘Ship Room’, when the local vicar, Mr Stephen Babbington, starts to choke, staggers to a nearby couch, collapses and dies. Who? Where? Why? What?

‘But why?’ cried Mrs. Babbington. ‘Why? What motive could there be for anyone killing Stephen?’ (Chapter 13)

Well Alan Manders for one. He revives the fact that, as a supposed communist, not so long ago he had a flaring argument with the vicar about the awful influence of Christianity, calling on churches all around the world to be swept away. But is that kind of political argument enough to murder someone?

Egg in love An important thread is that ‘Egg’ Gore, daughter of the impoverished aristocrat, Lady Mary Gore, appears to be passionately in love with old Sir Charles while, according to his observant friend, Satterthwaite, Sir Charles feels the same.

Interlude in Monte Carlo Again, with disarming randomness, Cartwright and Satterthwaite go on holiday to Monte Carlo where, by a boggling coincidence, Satterthwaite bumps into Hercule Poirot who confesses that he is bored. It’s here that he gives a potted account of his life story, explains that he is rich enough to retire, but is bored. Much later, when Satterthwaite is interviewing Manders, there’s a little exchange about Poirot.

‘That man!’ The expression burst from Oliver. ‘Is he back in England?’
‘Yes.’
‘Why has he come back?’
Mr. Satterthwaite rose.
‘Why does a dog go hunting?’ he replied. (Chapter 22)

Strange dies Luckily enough the English newspapers tell them that Cartwright’s close friend, Sir Bartholomew Strange, has also dropped dead at a dinner party he was giving at his home in Yorkshire, Melfort Abbey, with many of the same guests as attended Sir Charles’s ill-fated dinner in Cornwall. Can the two deaths be linked? In which case are they not from natural causes?

Nicotine poisoning When Sir Bartholomew’s death is attributed to nicotine poisoning, the authorities are persuaded to exhume Babbington’s body to see whether he died from the same cause.

The triumvirate Satterthwaite and Cartwright return to England, to Cornwall, where they meet up with Egg Gore and the threesome form a triumvirate a) agree that there’s more to this thing that meets the eye and so b) organise themselves as a team of sleuths, with different members tasked with interviewing various witnesses and connected persons.

Poirot reappears It’s in the middle of this conference, that Poirot makes the unexpected appearance I’ve described above, in Chapter 15 i.e. half way through the novel.

To Yorkshire Thus Satterthwaite and Cartwright travel up to Yorkshire, where they meet the country’s chief constable, the inspector in charge of the investigation, then visit the scene of Strange’s death (i.e. his grand country house), where they extensively interview the staff.

The missing butler In particular they follow up the local police’s main focus which is that Sir Bartholomew had recently retired his butler of long standing and taken on a new man, John Ellis. This Ellis disappeared from the house on the night of Strange’s death and no-one has seen him since.

The blackmail letters Poking around in Ellis’s room, Cartwright is struck by an ink stain on the carpet right in the corner of the room and, using his acting skills to impersonate a person huddled there, speculates that they were writing something when they heard footsteps coming along the hall, and so probably stuffed whatever they were writing under the gas heater. Sure enough they discover in just that location several drafts of what is obviously a blackmail note. Ellis knew something incriminating and planned to blackmail someone about it although, frustratingly, his drafts don’t include an addressee or any details.

The sanatorium They also visit the sanatorium set up at the nearby old Grange by Sir Bartholomew (who was a nerve specialist) for the treatment of patients with nervous breakdowns etc. As we all know, such places, in detective stories or thriller movies, are hotbeds of rumour and conspiracy. They interview the calm efficient matron.

Mrs De Rushbridger But they also learn of the recent arrival of a new patient, a Mrs De Rushbridger suffering from a nervous breakdown and loss of memory. And the inexplicable fact that, when Sir Bartholomew was informed by phone that she had arrived at his sanatorium, he was overcome with delight and congratulated the butler, Ellis, who had brought the news, something considered very odd by the housemaid who witnessed it. Why did Mrs De Rushbridger’s arrival at his sanatorium bring Sir Bartholomew so much pleasure? And a lot later on, when Miss Wills mentions that Sir Bartholomew had told her he was experimenting with hypnotism in restoring lost memories… Is that significant?

Alan Manders At the same time, a glaring oddity about the Yorkshire dinner is that Egg’s sometime beau, the suave young Alan Manders, who had attended the Cornwall dinner, had contrived to crash his motorbike into the wall of Sir Bartholomew’s country estate, had been taken into the house and so invited along to the dinner.

Anyone who’s read Christie’s preceding novel, the comedy thriller ‘Why Didn’t They Ask Evans?’ will remember how a leading character fakes a crash into the wall of a grand estate in order to be invited to rest and recuperate up at the big house. It seems that she’s used the exact same plot device in her very next story. These stories being arch, knowing comedies, she has her characters comment on the plot device’s obviousness, as Sir Bartholomew comments to his friend Angela Sutcliffe:

‘A new method of gate crashing,’ he called it. ‘Only,’ he said, ‘it’s my wall he’s crashed, not my gate.’ (Chapter 20)

Anyway, it puts us the alert that this Mandel went to great and rather absurd lengths to get himself invited to the fatal dinner. Was it in order to poison Sir Bartholomew? But why?

Egg interviews Meanwhile, Egg goes up to London where she interviews in quick succession two key attendees of both dinner parties, Mrs Dacres the fashionable dress-maker, and her wastrel husband Freddie Dacres, plus a model at Mrs D’s boutique who discloses that: 1) the company, despite its gleaming facade, is actually in dire financial straits; 2) Mrs D was chatting to if not having an affair with a handsome rich young man who she hoped to persuade to invest in her company but that 3) this likely fellow had been ordered off on a long sea voyage by none other than the noted Harley Street nerve specialist, Sir Bartholomew Strange. Mrs Dacres can’t possibly have murdered Sir Bartholomew out of revenge for the despatch of her lover / financial saviour… can she?

Freddie Dacres’ slip I’ve forgotten to mention that when Egg talks to Freddie (who takes her to a nightclub where he gets steadily more drunk) he goes into a kind of drunken memory which seems to imply that he himself has been consigned to, or locked up in, Sir Bartholomew’s sanatorium:

‘Sir Bartholomew Strange. Sir Bartholomew Humbug. I’d like to know what goes on in that precious Sanatorium of his. Nerve cases. That’s what they say. You’re in there and you can’t get out. And they say you’ve gone of your own free will. Free will! Just because they get hold of you when you’ve got the horrors.’ (Chapter 19)

Before going on to suddenly remember that his wife (Cynthia Dacres) not to tell anyone about this. Because then someone, or the police, might suspect him of bumping off old Sir Bartholomew…

Stop It’s at this point, with half a dozen possible suspects identified and a number of storylines nicely bubbling away, that I will – as in all my Christie reviews – stop summarising the plot. Because 1) they get steadily so much more complicated that summarising them becomes impossible, and 2) I don’t want to spoil it for anyone who decides to read it (see link to the online text, below).

Cast

In Loomouth

Murder 1: The Reverend Stephen Babbington dies soon after drinking a cocktail during drinks prior to dinner at Sir Charles Cartwright’s seaside house at Loomouth in Cornwall.

  • Mr Satterthwaite – ‘a dried-up little pipkin of a man’ with a ‘little wrinkled face’
  • Sir Charles Cartwright – 52, ‘an extraordinarily good-looking man, beautifully proportioned, with a lean humorous face, and the touch of grey at his temples gave him a kind of added distinction’ – has fallen in love with young ‘Egg’ Gore (below)
  • Sir Bartholomew ‘Tollie’ Strange – ‘a well-known specialist in nervous disorders’
  • Angela Sutcliffe – ‘a well-known actress, no longer younger, but with a strong hold on the public and celebrated for her wit and charm. She was sometimes spoken of as Ellen Terry’s successor’ – ‘How dull men are when they decide to settle down! They lose all their charm’
  • Captain Freddie Dacres – dissolute, gambler, drinker, drug taker – ‘He spent a lot of time on racecourses – had ridden himself in the Grand National in years – ‘a little red, foxy man with a short moustache and slightly shifty eyes’
  • Mrs Cynthia Dacres – owner of Ambrosine Ltd, a high-class, pretentious dress-making company and boutique in Bruton Street; Egg finds out from one of her models that the company is actually in dire financial straits
  • Anthony Astor – pen-name for the female playwright Miss Muriel Wills, author of ‘One-Way Traffic’ – ‘tall and thin, with a receding chin and very badly waved fair hair. She wore pince-nez and was dressed in exceedingly limp green chiffon. Her voice was high and undistinguished’ – distinctly less classy than all the other bourgeois characters, as indicated by the location of her home, in downscale Tooting
  • Lady Mary Lytton Gore – ‘Left as a widow very badly off with a child of three, she had come to Loomouth and taken a small cottage where she had lived with one devoted maid ever since. She was a tall thin woman, looking older than her fifty-five years. Her expression was sweet and rather timid’
  • Hermione Lytton ‘Egg’ Gore – young and foolish and in love with Sir Charles Cartwright, a genuine Christian – ‘twice as alive as anyone in that room. She had dark hair, and grey eyes and was of medium height. It was something in the way the hair curled crisply in her neck, in the straight glance of the grey eyes, in the curve of the cheek, in the infectious laugh that gave one that impression of riotous youth and vitality’
  • The Reverend Stephen Babbington – ‘quite a good fellow, not too parsonical,’ – ‘a man of sixty old, with kind faded eyes and a disarming diffident manner’
  • Mrs Margaret Babbington – the reverend’s wife, ‘a big untidy woman. She looked full of energy and likely to be free from petty mindedness’
  • Robin Babbington – their son, killed in India (they have three other sons: Edward in Ceylon, Lloyd in South Africa, and Stephen third officer on the Angolia)
  • Oliver Manders – 25, a good-looking young fellow, ‘a handsome lad, with his dark, heavy-lidded eyes and easy grace of movement’ – with something foreign about his appearance triggering this exchange: Egg Lytton Gore says to him: ‘Oliver – you slippery Shylock -‘ and Mr Sattersthwaite, observing the exchange, thinks: ‘Of course, that’s it – not foreign – Jew!’. Later we find out his mother had an affair with a married man whose wife refused a divorce i.e. he’s a bastard, he was taken up by his rich uncle in the City
  • Miss Milray – Sir Charles’s secretary: ‘Neither sudden deaths nor sudden changes of plan could excite Miss Milray. She accepted whatever happened as a fact and proceeded to cope with it in an efficient way’
  • Hercule Poirot
  • Temple – Sir Charles’s maid, ‘a tall girl of thirty-two or three. She had a certain smartness – her hair was well brushed and glossy, but she was not pretty. Her manner was calm and efficient.’
  • Dr MacDougal – the principal doctor in Loomouth

In Yorkshire

Murder 2: Sir Bartholomew Strange dies during a dinner party he’s hosting for much the same guests who attended Cartwright’s party in Cornwall.

  • Colonel Johnson – ’Yorkshire chief constable: ‘a big red-faced man with a barrack-room voice and a hearty manner’
  • Superintendent Crossfield – managing the investigation into Sir Bartholomew’s death: ‘a large, solid-looking man, rather slow of speech, but with a fairly keen blue eye’
  • Sir Jocelyn Campbell – local GP and toxicologist who was a guest at the dinner, who calls Strange’s time of death and suggests nicotine poisoning
  • Doctor Davis – police doctor
  • John Ellis – Sir Charles’s butler who disappears on the night of the death; later, letters threatening someone unknown with blackmail are found in his room
  • Mr Baker – Sir Bartholomew’s usual butler, for the last seven years, but who had been taken ill, given a holiday, and been replaced by Ellis
  • Miss Lyndon – Strange’s secretary
  • Mrs. Leckie – Strange’s cook: ‘a portly lady, decorously gowned in black’
  • Beatrice Church – Strange’s upper-housemaid: ‘a tall thin woman, with a pinched mouth, who looked aggressively respectable’
  • Alice West – Strange’s parlourmaid ‘a demure, dark-eyed young woman of thirty’
  • The Matron of the sanatorium – ‘a tall, middle-aged woman, with an intelligent face and a capable manner’
  • Strange’s lodge keeper – ‘a slow-witted man of middle age’

In London

Where Satterthwaite, Cartwright and Egg plan their investigations and are joined by Poirot, in an advisory capacity.

  • Sydney Sandford – the newest and youngest decorator of the moment, designed Mrs Dacres’ dress boutique
  • Doris Sims – model at Mrs Dacres’ boutique who Egg interviews, and tells her Mrs Dacres is hard up but she had been schmoozing a young rich man in a bid to get investment, but then he was ordered to take a long sea voyage, by his physician, the nerve specialist Sir Bartholomew Strange (!)

In Kent

  • Old Mrs Milray – Sir Charles’s secretary’s mother, ‘an immense dumpling of a woman immovably fixed in an armchair conveniently placed so that she could, from the window, observe all that went on in the world outside’ (Chapter 24)
  • Serving woman at the bakers where Egg and Sir Charles have a simple lunch

Love

Satterthwaite observes the love that cannot speak its name between Sir Charles Cartwright, 52, and young Egg Gore, young enough to be his daughter. Daddy issues.

It was, he [Satterthwaite] thought, an odd situation. That Sir Charles was overwhelmingly in love with the girl, he had no doubt whatever. She was equally in love with him. And the link between them the link to which each of them clung frenziedly was a crime a double crime of a revolting nature.
(Chapter 12)

Poirot’s life story

Early in the novel the setting moves to Monte Carlo where Mr Satterthwaite comes across Poirot sitting in a public park. Suddenly, for no very good reason, the Belgian tells him his life story:

‘See you, as a boy I was poor. There were many of us. We had to get on in the world. I entered the Police Force. I worked hard. Slowly I rose in that Force. I began to make a name for myself. I made a name for myself. I began to acquire an international reputation. At last, I was due to retire. There came the War. I was injured. I came, a sad and weary refugee, to England. A kind lady gave me hospitality. She died – not naturally; no, she was killed. Eh bien, I set my wits to work. I employed my little grey cells. I discovered her murderer. I found that I was not yet finished. No, indeed, my powers were stronger than ever. Then began my second career, that of a private inquiry agent in England. I have solved many fascinating and baffling problems. Ah, monsieur, I have lived! The psychology of human nature, it is wonderful. I grew rich. Some day, I said to myself, I will have all the money I need. I will realise all my dreams.’ (Chapter 6)

So that explains why he is retired and able to dally.

‘My time is all holidays nowadays. I have succeeded. I am rich. I retire. Now I travel about seeing the world.’ (Chapter 6)

Poirot’s motivation

‘Like the chien de chasse, I follow the scent, and I get excited, and once on the scent I cannot be called off it. All that is true. But there is more… It is – how shall I put it? – a passion for getting at the truth. In all the world there is nothing so curious and so interesting and so beautiful as truth…’ (Chapter 17)

Poirot’s method

‘I see the facts unbiased by any preconceived notions.’ (Poirot, Chapter 16)

‘My friend, do not ask me to do anything of an active nature. It is my lifelong conviction that any problem is best solved by thought.’ (Chapter 16)

Mon ami,’ said Poirot, ‘be guided by me. Only one thing will solve this case – the little grey cells of the brain. To rush up and down England, to hope that this person and that will tell us what we want to know – all such methods are amateurish and absurd. The truth can only be seen from within. (Chapter 25)

‘You mean it’s a lie?’ asked Sir Charles bluntly.
‘There are so many kinds of lies,’ said Hercule Poirot.
(Chapter 23)

And comparing his approach with his fellow investigators’:

‘You have the actor’s mind, Sir Charles, creative, original, seeing always dramatic values. Mr. Satterthwaite, he has the playgoer’s mind, he observes the characters, he has the sense of atmosphere. But me, I have the prosaic mind. I see only the facts without any dramatic trappings or footlights.’ (Chapter 25)

And once again we find him building houses out of cards as a way of meditating or letting his thoughts flow, much to Egg’s disgust (Chapter 26).

And, just as in every Poirot story, there comes the Eureka moment:

Mon dieu‘ cried Poirot.
‘What is it? Has anything happened?’
‘Yes, indeed something has happened. An idea. A superb idea. Oh, but I have been blind – blind –’
(Chapter 26)

Poirot’s pride

Mr. Satterthwaite studied him [Poirot] with interest. He was amused by the naïve conceit, the immense egoism of the little man. But he did not make the easy mistake of considering it mere empty boasting. An Englishman is usually modest about what he does well, sometimes pleased with himself over something he does badly; but a Latin has a truer appreciation of his own powers. If he is clever he sees no reason for concealing the fact.
(Chapter 17)

Poirot’s subterfuge

But behind these latter qualities turns out to be cunning. Obviously Christie was in an explanatory mood because she not only inserts into this novel an overview of Poirot’s career, but also a clever explanation of his manner:

‘Ah, I will explain. It is true that I can speak the exact, the idiomatic English. But, my friend, to speak the broken English if an enormous asset. It leads people to despise you. They say – a foreigner – he can’t even speak English properly. It is not my policy to terrify people – instead I invite their gentle ridicule. Also I boast! An Englishman he says often, “A fellow who thinks as much of himself as that cannot be worth much.” That is the English point of view. It is not at all true. And so, you see, I put people off their guard. Besides, he added, it has become a habit.’ (Chapter 27)

Cunning as a serpent.

The English class system

Hercule Poirot, the little bourgeois, looked up at the aristocrat. He spoke quickly but firmly.

Bookishness

‘Mrs de Rushbridger was killed before she could speak. How dramatic! How like the detective stories, the plays, the films!’ (Poirot in Chapter 27)

In previous reviews I’ve developed the idea that Christie having her characters regularly compare their situations and scenarios to the stereotypes and clichés of detective stories (or movies) serves several purposes. 1) It pre-empts criticism from critics or readers who may be tempted to complain about the corny (or preposterous) plot developments. 2) But at the same time it draws attention to the artificiality of the whole genre and nudges you away from even trying to compare anyone or anything that happens to ‘real life’, gently nudging you into the entirely fictional land of Detective Stories, where anything can happen, where anyone can disguise themselves as anyone else in order to carry out the most ludicrously complicated crimes.

Hence the succession of ‘nudges’ in this story.

‘You know, Egg, you really are detestably hearty. And your tastes are childish – crime – sensation – and all that bunk.’ (Manders to Egg, Chapter 5)

‘How superior detective stories are to life,’ sighed Sir Charles. ‘In fiction there is always some distinguishing characteristic.’ (Chapter 9)

‘What was his manner on the night of the tragedy?’ asked Mr Satterthwaite in a slightly bookish manner. (Chapter 9)

They left it in a somewhat disconcerted fashion. Their zeal as detectives was momentarily damped. Possibly the thought passed through their minds that things were arranged better in books. (Chapter 10)

‘The idea of gain we can now put definitely away,’ he said. ‘There does not seem to be anybody who (in detective story parlance) could benefit by Stephen Babbington’s death.’ (Chapter 15)

‘I’m afraid,’ said Lady Mary, ‘that that’s rather too clever for me.’
‘I apologise. I was talking rather bookishly.’ (Chapter 14)

‘Dash it all,’ went on Sir Charles with feeling, ‘in detective stories there’s always some identifying mark on the villain. I thought it was a bit hard that real life should prove so lamentably behindhand.’
‘It’s usually a scar in stories,’ said Miss Wills thoughtfully.
‘A birthmark’s just as good,’ said Sir Charles. (Chapter 21)

As Egg and Mr. Satterthwaite stood waiting for the lift, Egg said ecstatically: ‘It’s lovely – just like detective stories. All the people will be there, and then he’ll tell us which of them did it.’ (Chapter 23)

But these narrow quotes risk missing the bigger picture which I mentioned at the start, which is the book’s relentless comparison of lots of scenes to The Stage, with Sir Charles Cartwright ready, at the drop of a hat, to step into character as The Intrepid Detective, much to the amusement of his wry, observing friend, Mr Satterthwaite.

The new woman

Every generation going back to the 1880s thinks it has invented The New Woman, fearlessly defying the conventions of a Man’s World, and competing with men on their own terms etc etc. Christie’s independent novels almost always feature a variation on this type. In ‘Three Act Tragedy’, Egg Gore is a kind of caricature of the modern young woman, headstrong, impatient, taking the lead.

Egg Lytton Gore had got him [Mr Satterthwaite] securely cornered on the fishing quay. Merciless, these modern young women – and terrifying! (Chapter 4)

‘Have patience,’ counselled Mr Satterthwaite. ‘Everything comes right in the end, you know.’
‘I’m not patient,’ said Egg. ‘I want to have things at once, or even quicker.’ (Chapter 12)

1930s diction

‘I hate women. Lousy cats. Did you see her clothes – that one with the green hair? They made me gnash my teeth with envy. A woman who has clothes like that has a pull – you can’t deny it. She’s quite old and ugly as sin, really, but what does it matter. She makes everyone else look like a dowdy curate’s wife. Is it her? Or is it the other one with the grey hair? She’s amusing – you can see that. She’s got masses of S.A…’ (Chapter 5)

‘I always think,’ said Egg, ‘that Mrs Dacres looks a frightful cat. Is she?’ (Chapter 18)

‘I’m not at all sure that I’m not a little jealous of her… We women are such cats, aren’t we? Scratch, scratch, miauw, miauw, purr, purr…’ She laughed. (Chapter 20)

Where ‘cat’ means gossipy bitch, and SA stands for sex appeal.

‘And so he’s legged it.’

Which I thought was a lower-class phrase from my own youth, but is obviously older.

Mrs. Dacres, looking as usual marvellously unreal, was (as Egg put it to herself) doing her stuff. (Chapter 18)

Penetrating

Her words came drawlingly, in the mode of the moment.
‘My dear, it wasn’t possible. I mean, things either are possible or they’re not. This wasn’t. It was simply penetrating.’
That was the new word just now – everything was ‘penetrating‘. (Chapter 2)

‘Now, do you like this? Those shoulder knots – rather amusing, don’t you think? And the waistline’s rather penetrating.’ (Chapter 18)

‘My dear, it was too penetrating for words!’ (Chapter 18)

‘Extraordinary fat women come and positively goggle at me. Too penetrating.’ (Chapter 18)

Modern psychology

Presumably, as the years passed from 1916 when Christie wrote her first novel, modern psychology became more and more well known, extensive, covered in newspapers and magazines, and so filtered into popular fiction, especially when the lead character (Poirot) is himself so interested in psychology, as he tells anyone who will listen.

‘How much crime depends, too, on that psychological moment. The crime, the psychology, they go hand in hand.’ (Chapter 17)

But in this story it is not only Poirot who talks about psychology, but other characters as well. The subject crops up when Mr Satterthwiate goes to see / interview staid old Lady Mary. Here’s Satterthwaite confidently describing an inferiority complex, a concept first developed by Freud’s follower Alfred Adler, around 1907 but which had, quite clearly, percolated through to the wider culture by 1934 if not some time before:

‘An inferiority complex is a very peculiar thing. Crippen, for instance, undoubtedly suffered from it. It’s at the back of a lot of crimes. The desire to assert one’s personality.’ (Chapter 14)

Surprisingly, maybe, Lady Mary turns out to have read up on the subject:

‘Some books that I’ve read these last few years have brought a lot of comfort to me. Books on psychology. It seems to show that in many ways people can’t help themselves. A kind of kink. Sometimes, in the most carefully brought-up families you get it. As a boy Ronald stole money at school – money that he didn’t need. I can feel now that he couldn’t help himself… He was born with a kink…’ (Chapter 14)

‘Every woman adores a fascist’ (Sylvia Plath)

Lady Mary fell for a wrong ‘un. Her father told her so and tried to forbid her from marrying ‘Ronald’ but, according to her, many women are attracted to problem men.

‘There doesn’t seem to be anything that warns girls against a certain type of man. Nothing in themselves, I mean. Their parents warn them, but that’s no good – one doesn’t believe. It seems dreadful to say so, but there is something attractive to a girl in being told anyone is a bad man. She thinks at once that her love will reform him.’
(Lady Mary, Chapter 14)

Her daughter, Egg, is a chip off the old block, although she’s much more forward and confident and cynical about it, in the modern style:

‘I like men to have affairs,’ said Egg. ‘It shows they’re not queer or anything.’
(Chapter 4)

Nonetheless, despite all this modern self-awareness, she seems to have fallen in love just as inappropriately, with an older man, with Sir Charles.

This theme was aired extensively in ‘Murder on the Blue Train’ where young Ruth Kettering is said to be attracted to Comte Armand de la Roche precisely because he had such a bad reputation. And in the novel after this, ‘Death in the Clouds’ where sweet Jane Grey is attracted (without knowing it) to the serial killer, Norman Gale:

‘A killer,’ said Poirot. ‘And like many killers, attractive to women.’
(Death in the Clouds, Chapter 26)

It’s tempting to attribute the belief to Christie herself, but I’m more inclined to think it’s one of the many standardised clichés and stereotypes which she used to construct her ludicrous stories.

Dinner menu

I’ve read thousands of novels in which characters have thousands of breakfasts, lunches and dinners but it never ceases to amaze me how little detail most authors give of the specific dishes consumed at any meal. This novel features a very rare description of the actual dishes served at a dinner, and so an interesting sidelight on social history.

Soup, grilled sole, pheasant and chipped potatoes, chocolate soufflé, soft roes on toast.
(Chapter 7)

Cornwall’s reputation

‘I always think Cornwall is rather terribly artisty… I simply cannot bear artists. Their bodies are always such a curious shape.’
(Mrs Dacres in Chapter 18)

Poirot and Wittgenstein

Right at the end of his neat explanation of the crime, how it was done and why, Poirot draws a general conclusion. Solving a murder mystery requires a certain amount of fact finding, obviously yes yes yes – but then what is really required is thinking long and hard so as to arrange everything that is known into a logical sequence which fits all the facts and matches the psychology of the people involved i.e. is psychologically plausible. Hence his repeated insistence in all the books on the imperative importance of sitting back and thinking.

To be more precise, you have to find the right angle, the right vantage point, from which all the facts fit into a logical and psychologically consistent pattern.

‘Now here I admit that Sir Charles was right and I was wrong. I was wrong because I was looking at the crime from an entirely false angle. It is only twenty-four hours ago that I suddenly perceived the proper angle of vision – and let me say that from that angle of vision the murder of Stephen Babbington is both reasonable and possible.’ (Chapter 27)

Now this idea, that a mental problem is only a problem because we are looking at it from the wrong perspective, and that what is required is not finding a solution so much as finding the right angle from which to regard the facts – this reminded me exactly of the later philosophy of the twentieth century’s greatest philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein. In my review of the brilliant biography of Wittgenstein by Ray Monk, I summarise his later attitude thus:

Wittgenstein isn’t about making theories or coming up with theoretical foundations. He wants to release people from their confusions and perplexities by making them see the ‘problem’ in a new way, from a different perspective. There are no solutions. But if you see problems from the right angle, they cease to be problems any more and so the lack of solutions, also, ceases to cause you anxiety and worry. Philosophy is the therapy which cures anxiety about philosophical problems.

Apparently Wittgenstein was fond of quoting the physicist Heinrich Herz who struggled with the problems in mechanical theory bequeathed by Isaac Newton’s notion of ‘force’. But in his book The Principles of Mechanics, Herz explained that if you dumped the notion of force altogether and simply observed the wide variety of events which used to be corralled together to create the definition – if you actually just looked at what was in front of your eyes – then all the ‘problems’ raised by hanging onto Newton’s out-dated notion simply disappeared.

“When these painful contradictions are removed, the question as to the nature of force will not have been answered; but our minds, no longer vexed, will cease to ask illegitimate questions.” (Quoted in Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius by Ray Monk, 1991, page 446)

Wittgenstein was delighted by this passage because it exactly epitomised his own approach to the so-called ‘problems’ of philosophy.

And closely matches the approach of the great fictional detective.

‘Me, I have dealt with crime for many years now. I have my own way of regarding things

Poirot has a way, an angle, a perspective, which again and again solves complex mysteries which all his peers, whether professional or amateur, find impossible to solve. And he nearly always ends up by saying that, once regarded from the correct angle, most of these ‘insoluble’ puzzles turn out to be astonishingly simple.

So the twentieth century’s greatest detective and its greatest philosopher shared this fundamental approach in common 🙂


Credit

‘Three Act Tragedy’ by Agatha Christie was published in 1935 by the Collins Crime Club.

Related links

Related reviews

‘I’d never seen a murder at close hand before. A writer’s got to take everything as copy, hasn’t she?’
‘I believe that’s a well-known axiom.’ (Chapter 21)

The Mystery of the Blue Train by Agatha Christie (1928)

‘My name is Hercule Poirot,’ he said quietly, ‘and I am probably the greatest detective in the world.’
(Poirot, modest as ever, ‘The Mystery of the Blue Train’, chapter 17)

‘They will grab at the money and abuse you all the more afterwards.’
‘Well,’ said Katherine, ‘let them if they like. We all have our own ways of enjoying ourselves.’
(Katherine Grey’s plucky sense of humour, chapter 8)

‘What is important? What is not? One cannot say at this stage. But we must note each little fact carefully.’
(Poirot in typically sententious mode, chapter 11)

How should it have occurred to Ruth, except as the wildest coincidence, that the first person that the maid should run across in Paris should be her father’s secretary? Ah, but that was the way things happened. That was the way things got found out.
(Or at least that was the way things happen in classic detective stories which abound in outrageous coincidences and improbable situations.)

‘You are the goods, Monsieur Poirot. Every time, you are the goods.’
(Mr Van Aldin gets his money’s worth, chapter 25)

‘At the tennis one meets everyone.’
(Tennis, one of the 1920s’ new sports crazes, along with golf)

Executive summary

Millionaire’s daughter Mrs Ruth Kettering is travelling to the south of France on the famous Blue Train when, somewhere between Paris and Lyons, she is murdered in her compartment. Her jewel case, including the famous red rubies her father gave her, is stolen. Who did it? Suspicion falls on two obvious suspects:

  1. Her ne’er-do-well husband, Derek Kettering, heir to a title and large inheritance but is deeply in debt due to his addiction to gambling; who Ruth’s father was telling her to divorce because of his infidelity; and whose hard-hearted mistress, the dancer Mirelle, had suggested would be much better off if Ruth died before she divorced him because then he would inherit her millions; and who was on the same train heading south as Ruth, although he swears they were travelling separately and he didn’t know she was on it too.
  2. The Comte de la Roche: Ruth’s long-term secret lover, a seducer and exploiter of rich women well known to the police, who had written to Ruth asking her to come and visit him in the south of France and explicitly told her to bring the precious rubies because he was writing a book about famous gems; might he have been the mysterious man seen by various eye witnesses entering Ruth’s compartment soon before her death?

It just so happens that Poirot was travelling on the very same Blue Train and so, once the murdered woman’s body is found, he volunteers his services to the local police and sets about untangling the complicated motives of all the major players in the story, along with various peripheral figures (such as Ruth’s maid, Van Aldin’s secretary, and the mysterious figure of ‘the Marquis’).

Only after Christie has strewn the narrative with numerous red herrings and complicated but ambiguous details, does Poirot finally identify the murderer.

Longer summary

‘The Mystery of the Blue Train’ is the fifth Poirot novel. But it is not narrated by his sidekick, Captain Hastings, who doesn’t appear at all, so it lacks the layer of (often unwitting) comedy which Hastings brings to the stories. And it completely lacks the sparkling high spirits of the very funny comedy murder mysteries, The Secret of Chimneys and ‘The Mystery of the Seven Dials’, with their cast of wonderfully droll and self-aware young chaps and chapesses. Those two novels have preposterously complicated and far-fetched plots but that just makes them all the more amusing.

By striking contrast, ‘The Mystery of the Blue Train’ is a much more sober affair: there is only one murder and the three leading figures are rather boring. Katherine Grey is a former lady’s companion, who has led a boring life until the old lady she’s been caring for dies and leaves her a fortune; Derek Kettering is a suave but impetuous adulterer, quick to anger; and the Comte de la Roche is a slick con-man. No real laughs between the three of ’em.

Instead there’s such a long and elaborate build-up of character and backstory meaning that Poirot doesn’t appear until chapter 11 of this 36-chapter book.

Van Aldin-Ruth-Derek

Nothing is too good for American millionaire Rufus Van Aldin‘s daughter, Ruth. Which is why the narrative opens with him doing dodgy deals amid Paris’s criminal underworld, and even fighting off a mugging attempt by the notorious ‘Apaches’ or street criminals, in order to get his hands on some world-famous red rubies, including the legendary Heart of Fire which was supposedly worn by Catherine the Great of Russia. Why these lurid opening scenes? 1) Nominally in order to give them tom his beloved daughter Ruth. But 2) also to create a sense of crime and violence which is to loom over the rest of the novel.

Van Aldin’s daughter, Ruth, is no soft touch.

Ruth Kettering was twenty-eight years of age. Without being beautiful, or in the real sense of the word even pretty, she was striking looking because of her colouring. Van Aldin had been called Carrots and Ginger in his time, and Ruth’s hair was almost pure auburn. With it went dark eyes and very black lashes—the effect somewhat enhanced by art. She was tall and slender, and moved well. At a careless glance it was the face of a Raphael Madonna. Only if one looked closely did one perceive the same line of jaw and chin as in Van Aldin’s face, bespeaking the same hardness and determination. It suited the man, but suited the woman less well. From her childhood upward Ruth Van Aldin had been accustomed to having her own way, and anyone who had ever stood up against her soon realized that Rufus Van Aldin’s daughter never gave in.

Unfortunately, no amount of gifts can conceal the fact that Ruth is unhappy because she is married to the Honourable Derek Kettering who is a drawling philanderer who cares nothing for her.

…thirty-four, lean of build, with a dark, narrow face, which had even now something indescribably boyish in it…

In the scene where he gives Ruth his dramatic present of super-valuable rubies, Van Aldin also forces her to concede that, after putting up with Derek’s wretched behaviour for years, it’ about time she divorced him. Ruth appears reluctant because (the narrative strongly implies) any court case might bring out the fact that Ruth herself has been less than an angel, and we slowly realise this is because she has remained in touch with her first love, the louche Comte de la Roche.

In a separate scene Van Aldin calls Derek Kettering in for an interview. He loathes his son-in-law and tells him he must divorce his daughter but Derek infuriates the old man with his suave irony and flippancy. He counters Van Aldin’s criticism of him by pointing out that the main reason Ruth married him was because he is heir to the title of Lord Leconbury, ‘one of the oldest families in England’. When the current Lord dies, Derek will inherit the title and the grand house at Leconbury and Ruth will become its mistress. Derek says Ruth is well aware it would be a shame to divorce him (Derek) now, just as his father is on his last legs, just as he is about to inherit the title, at which point Ruth would become a Lady and chatelaine of a grand English country house. Derek leaves Van Aldin with the parting shot that the father (Van Aldin) ought to know the daughter (Ruth) better than he evidently does.

Derek then goes to the apartment of his lover, the attractive but slovenly Mirelle.

The dancer was a beautifully made woman, and if her face, beneath its mask of yellow, was in truth somewhat haggard, it had a bizarre charm of its own.

In their conversation it becomes clear that Derek is very poor, he has borrowed large sums against the promise of his inheritance and managed to lose most of it gambling. When he jokily describes how losing Ruth would leave him utterly penniless Mirelle makes it clear she will leave him if he is ruined. There is no love lost between them. She jokily suggests that Derek should bump off Ruth while they’re still married; then her fortune would come to him. But he doesn’t take it seriously and storms out.

Meanwhile, Van Aldin hires a private detective, Mr Goby, to find out the dirt on Derek, mainly confirming for Van Aldin what the reader has just learned – that he is broke and has a mistress.

After some business in the City, Van Aldin calls in again on his daughter and almost bumps into a man coming out of her hotel apartment. Only talking to Ruth does he realise that the man was Armand, the Comte de la Roche.

The Comte’s charm of manner was usually wasted on his own sex. All men, without exception, disliked him heartily.

Now it comes out that when Ruth was living in Paris she fell deeply in love with the Comte but her father, convinced he was a swindler (which the novel goes on to show that he is), broke them up and more or less forced her to marry Derek. So she blames her father for wrecking the love of her life and attaching her to a drawling wastrel (Derek).

Summary so far

To summarise: Van Aldin is pressurising his daughter Ruth to divorce her no-good husband Derek. Derek has discussed the possibility of murdering Ruth to ensure he inherits her fortune. Ruth is reluctant to take divorce proceedings because any legal action is likely to bring out the fact that she has carried on having an affair with the Comte de la Roche i.e. been just as unfaithful as Derek.

As for the Comte, we don’t get many scenes with him early on so we are inclined to Van Aldin’s view that he is a gold-digger, that he has always only pretended to love Ruth in order to get his hands on her fortune. The arrival of the famous red rubies in Ruth’s possession has only raised the stakes all round. And Mirelle is a wild card because she alternately loves Derek (for his money) and hates him (for threatening to leave her / becoming penniless).

In other words the three men and two women in this matrix of relationships all have good reason to resent and dislike each other.

On an impulse Derek decides that he wants to get away from London and drops into the Thomas Cook shop in Piccadilly to buy a ticket on the Blue Train to the Riviera. (Unbeknown to him, his wife is also going to be travelling on the same train, in response to the letter from the Comte.) And here (in the Thomas Cook office) he bumps into a mysterious grey-haired lady, who is also buying a ticket on the Blue Train. Who is she?

Miss Katherine Grey-Lady Tamplin

At which point we are introduced to a new thread and the other major character in the story:

Katherine Grey was thirty-three. She came of good family, but her father had lost all his money, and Katherine had had to work for her living from an early age. She had been just twenty-three when she had come to old Mrs Harfield as companion… Katherine Grey was born with the power of managing old ladies, dogs, and small boys, and she did it without any apparent sense of strain.

The Katherine narrative is more straightforward. For years she has been a companion to old Mrs Harfield in the sleepy village of St Mary Mead. The old lady has recently passed away. When Katherine goes to see the family solicitor, she expects she will get a little nest egg from the old lady who was always frugal, but is astonished to learn she had been nursing a small fortune which will now come to Katherine. What shall she do with it and with her life? Well, certainly buy some nice clothes but what then?

It’s at this juncture that Katherine receives a letter from one Lady Tamplin. A chapter is devoted to introducing her in her villa in the south of France. Lady Tamplin is:

A golden-haired, blue-eyed lady in a very becoming negligee. That the golden hair owed something to art, as did the pink-and-white complexion, was undeniable, but the blue of the eyes was Nature’s gift, and at forty-four Lady Tamplin could still rank as a beauty.

Lady Tamplin lives with her dim husband, ‘Chubby’, and her sharp, ironic daughter, the Honourable Lenox Tamplin.

A daughter such as Lenox was a sad thorn in Lady Tamplin’s side, a girl with no kind of tact, who actually looked older than her age, and whose peculiar sardonic form of humour was, to say the least of it, uncomfortable.

The point is that the Katherine Grey who has just inherited a fortune is a distant relative of Lady Tamplin. Lady T has just read about the legacy in The Times and sees an opportunity to mulct some money out of the innocent Katherine. So this is why Lady T decides to invite Katherine to come and stay with them on the Riviera, so that she and Lenox can introduce her into the ways of the upper class and/or try to extract some of her fortune from her, and writes her a letter of invitation to come and stay. At a loose end, Katherine agrees to accept the invitation.

So this is what she is doing at Thomas Cook’s offices in Piccadilly. Here she recognises the man in the queue to be served; he nearly bumped into her in the Savoy Hotel that morning (as he came out of the suite inhabited by the visiting millionaire Van Aldin). It is Derek Kettering. He has reserved a berth on the Blue Train to the Riviera on the 14th of the month under the name of his man, Pavett. Katherine follows him in the queue, and also buys a berth on the Blue Train to the Riviera on the 14th of the month.

What neither of them know is that Derek’s wife, Ruth, is also going to be on the same Blue Train because she has been invited to come and meet him in the south of France by the Comte.

After Derek’s got back home from buying his ticket, he is paid a visit by Van Aldin’s secretary, Major Knighton, ‘a tall fair man with a limp’ from a wound received in the war. Deeply embarrassed, Knighton presents van Aldin’s final offer that, if Derek doesn’t contest the divorce, VA will give him £100,000 flat. Derek listens then tells him to go to hell. Then tells his man to start packing his bags for his trip to the south of France.

On the Blue Train

So Ruth and Katherine are on the same Blue Train and end up sitting opposite each other at lunch and get talking. After over a decade as a lady’s companion, Katherine is used to listening, has an aura of confidentiality about her. So they quickly become confidential and Ruth confesses that she is going against her father’s explicit orders, to meet her lover in the south of France. Katherine learns all about her marital misfortunes but nonetheless advises her to telegram her father when the train gets to Paris to let him know where she’s going, and Katherine agrees.

They two women pass the afternoon on the train in their different ways, then, at dinner, Katherine finds herself sat opposite a small man with a waxed black moustache and an egg-shaped head. Well, any Christie fan immediately knows who this is – the world-famous detective Hercule Poirot, who is all politeness, charm and egotism.

‘It is true that I have the habit of being always right—but I do not boast of it.’ (Chapter 10)

He notices that Katherine is reading a detective novel (a roman policier in French). She says she enjoys reading them because such things never happen in real life. Poirot politely points out that sometimes they do. Either way a connection has been made between them.

More minor incidents occur the most significant of which is that just before the train reaches Lyon, Katherine thinks she sees the man she saw in the Thomas Cook office, in the corridor and then entering the compartment of Ruth. She thinks. Later she is not 100% sure…

The murder

When the train reaches Nice a train assistant knocks on the door, then enters, and discovers Ruth’s body. She is lying peacefully up in her bed, with her head turned away. Only when he shakes her does the train assistant realise she is dead. She has been strangled from behind and then, notable detail, her face severely disfigured by punches or blows.

The police are called in the shape of M. Caux the Commissary of Police. One by one they interview witnesses in an office in the station. The Commissary is surprised when there’s a knock on the door and in looks the famous Hercule Poirot. He and the other police officials enthusiastically welcome Poirot’s offer to help the investigation, so from here on he sits in on all the interviews of all the relevant witness.

It’s in this context that he meets Katherine again and notes that ‘From the beginning we have been sympathetic to each other’ going on to say, in his confidential manner:

‘This shall be a ‘roman policierà nous. We will investigate this affair together.’ (Chapter 11)

And a little later:

‘This is our own roman policier, is it not?’ said Poirot. ‘I made you the promise that we should study it together. And me, I always keep my promises.’ (Chapter 20)

To some extent, Katherine replaces the figure of Captain Hastings, as a sort of assistant who he can bounce ideas off, muse out loud with and thus, at the same time, share his ideas with the reader.

At the Villa Marguerite

When she is released from questioning by the police, Katherine continues her plans. She is met at Nice station by Lady Tamplin’s husband, the harmless ‘Chubby’ Evans (Lady T’s title derives from a former marriage), and taken to the Villa Marguerite. Katherine quickly gets the measure of its three inhabitants:

She looked in turn at the three people sitting round the table. Lady Tamplin, full of practical schemes; Mr. Evans, beaming with naïve appreciation, and Lenox with a queer crooked smile on her dark face. (Chapter 12)

Later there is lunch and she is staggered to find herself sitting next to the (to her, unnamed and unknown) man who she saw in the queue at Thomas Cook’s, and then saw on the Blue Train. Even more staggered when a servant hands him a message and reveals his name is Kettering and so she learns that he is the husband of the murdered woman.

The cops

Van Aldin is in the middle of doing work with his secretary when he gets the telegram saying his daughter has been murdered. He immediately makes plans to catch the first train south and 24 hours later is joining the investigation, along with his own theories and prejudices (he thinks the murder must be Derek).

Cut to Van Aldin and his secretary arriving in Nice and being introduced to the French police and Poirot. They question Ruth’s maid, Mason. Oddly, Ruth had told her to stay behind, in Paris, at the Paris Ritz, and await further instructions. Why?

Van Aldin is staggered to learn that Ruth had taken her jewels with her, in a red morocco case, even the red rubies, when he had specifically told her to lock them in a safe deposit in London. All becomes clear when the French Juge d’Instruction, M. Carrège, produces a letter found on Ruth’s body, sent from the Comte, telling her to bring her jewels with her as he claimed to be writing a book about famous jewels.

The conference of cops gravitates to the theory that this Comte did the murder and stole the jewels, bringing themselves into conflict with Van Aldin who is unshakably convinced that it was his no-good son-in-law. Van Aldin hires Poirot on a commercial basis, as a freelance investigator, and the book takes on a new complexion. Out of the rather anarchic setup, we emerge into clarity knowing that whatever happens going forward, Poirot will, eventually, fix it all. For example it is Poirot who discovers that the Comte is staying at a villa he’s rented, the Villa Marina at Antibes.

So the police call in for questioning, or requestioning, the following witnesses: the Comte, Derek Kettering, the maid, and Katherine.

And it’s at this point that the plot becomes convoluted in the familiar Christie way because a straightfoward narrative of events starts to get overlaid and mixed up with the theories developed by the various personnel:

  • obviously the police have their theories
  • Poirot hints at his ideas, not least in conversations with Katherine, and adds questions to the police interrogations designed to confirm or refute them
  • Van Aldin has his simple animus against Derek and carries out his own interviews with Katherine and the maid to try and prove his point
  • and we are party to Katherine’s evolving theories about who did what, where.

‘But this is an entirely new theory,’ cried Knighton. (Chapter 33)

So it’s at this point that I’ll stop even trying to summarise the plot because from here onwards it consists of all the characters concocting theories which themselves continually shift and need updating as more information becomes available:

  • Who did the cigarette case found on the train with a monogrammed ‘K’ belong to?
  • What is the renowned and unscrupulous jewel merchant M. Papopolous (and his daughter Zia) doing in Nice?
  • What favour did Poirot do for Papopolous 17 years ago, and why does he call it in now?
  • What role is played by the mysterious figure M. Papolous refers to as ‘the Marquis’?
  • What is Derek’s mistress Mirelle doing in Nice and, furious at being dumped by him (‘She looked not altogether unlike a leopardess, tawny and dangerous’), will her spiteful denunciation persuade the police that Derek is guilty?

And many more convoluted questions. Not to mention the two leading suspects engaging in guilty behaviour of one sort or another.

You can read the whole thing, along with its surprising denouement, online. Here are a few scattered thoughts or observations.

Poirot

Poirot drew himself up. ‘Leave it in the hands of Hercule Poirot,’ he said superbly; ‘have no fears. I will discover the truth.’ (Chapter 24)

‘I am a good detective. I suspect. There is nobody and nothing that I do not suspect. I believe nothing that I am told.’ (Chapter 35)

Retirement

As always, I am puzzled why Poirot is permanently presented as having retired.

‘This is M. Hercule Poirot; you have doubtless heard of him. Although he has retired from his profession for some years now, his name is still a household word as one of the greatest living detectives.’ (Chapter 14)

How odd of Christie to introduce her detective as having retired just as he was about to embark on a 40-year career of solving crimes (that last Poirot book was published in 1974).

Poirot’s process

As far as I can tell Poirot’s process has two aspects: 1) record the facts and lay them out as logically and dispassionately as possible, 2) supplement the facts with psychology: why would so-and-so do x? Is it consistent with his or her character?

Here he is on the facts:

‘Let us arrange our facts with order and precision….’

‘I mean nothing,’ said Poirot. ‘I arrange the facts, that is all.’

And on the importance of psychology:

Poirot wagged an emphatic forefinger. ‘The psychology.’
‘Eh?’ said the Commissary.
The psychology is at fault. The Comte is a scoundrel—yes. The Comte is a swindler—yes. The Comte preys upon women—yes. He proposes to steal Madame’s jewels—again yes. Is he the kind of man to commit murder? I say no! A man of the type of the Comte is always a coward; he takes no risks.’

In summary:

‘It is nothing,’ said Poirot modestly. ‘Order, method, being prepared for eventualities beforehand—that is all there is to it.’ (Chapter 21)

‘I am always punctual,’ said Poirot. ‘The exactitude—always do I observe it. Without order and method—’

Poirot’s green eyes

As to Poirot’s other characteristics, they are all here to please fans. The green light in his eyes when he becomes excited:

Poirot sat up suddenly in his chair. A very faint green light glowed in his eyes. He looked extraordinarily like a sleek, well-fed cat. (Chapter 17)

When the car had driven off he relapsed into a frowning absorption, but in his eyes was that faint green light which was always the precursor of the triumph to be. (Chapter 28)

As Lenox remarks:

‘I have rather lost my heart to him. I never met a man before whose eyes were really green like a cat’s.’ (Chapter 29)

Poirot’s monstrous ego

‘Voilà,’ said the stranger, and sank into a wooden arm-chair; ‘I am Hercule Poirot.’
‘”Yes, Monsieur?’
‘You do not know the name?’
‘I have never heard it,’ said Hippolyte.
‘Permit me to say that you have been badly educated. It is the name of one of the great ones of this world.’
(Chapter 29)

Papa Poirot

The spooky way he refers to himself as Papa Poirot, especially when talking to women.

‘You mock yourself at me,’ said Poirot genially, ‘but no matter. Papa Poirot, he always laughs the last.’ (Chapter 21)

Poirot’s arrogance

It amused her to see the little man plume himself like a bird, thrusting out his chest, and assuming an air of mock modesty that would have deceived no one. (Chapter 21)

Poirot raised a hand. ‘Grant me a little moment, Monsieur. Me, I have a little idea. Many people have mocked themselves at the little ideas of Hercule Poirot—and they have been wrong.’ (Chapter 21)

‘M. Van Aldin is an obstinate man,’ said Poirot drily. ‘I do not argue with obstinate men. I act in spite of them.’ (Chapter 27)

At several points he compares himself to God, as being the only two forces in the world you can utterly rely on.

‘Trust the train, Mademoiselle, for it is le bon Dieu who drives it.’ The whistle of the engine came again. ”Trust the train, Mademoiselle,’ murmured Poirot again. ‘And trust Hercule Poirot. He knows.’
(Last words of the novel)

Praise from others

‘He is a very remarkable person,’ said Knighton slowly, ‘and has done some very remarkable things. He has a kind of genius for going to the root of the matter, and right up to the end no one has any idea of what he is really thinking.’ (Chapter 21)

Christie’s antisemitism

Apparently, the Anti-Defamation League in America complained to her publishers about the antisemitic stereotypes or tropes often found in Christie’s stories. ‘The Mystery of the Blue Train’ is no exception.

A little man with a face like a rat. A man, one would say, who could never play a conspicuous part, or rise to prominence in any sphere. And yet, in leaping to such a conclusion, an onlooker would have been wrong. For this man, negligible and inconspicuous as he seemed, played a prominent part in the destiny of the world. In an Empire where rats ruled, he was the king of the rats… His face gleamed white and sharp in the moonlight. There was the least hint of a curve in the thin nose. His father had been a Polish Jew, a journeyman tailor. It was business such as his father would have loved that took him abroad to-night. (Chapter 1)

A face like a rat?!

‘Seventeen years is a long time,’ said Poirot thoughtfully, ‘but I believe that I am right in saying, Monsieur, that your race does not forget.’
‘A Greek?’ murmured Papopolous, with an ironical smile.
‘It was not as a Greek I meant,’ said Poirot.
There was a silence, and then the old man drew himself up proudly.
‘You are right, M. Poirot,’ he said quietly. ‘I am a Jew. And, as you say, our race does not forget.’
(Chapter 22)

Christie’s sexism

Along with the stereotypes about Jews (and lots of other nationalities) go a raft of sexist generalisations about women. Obviously the books are of their time, allowances ought to be made etc, but it’s still notable. In particular there’s a lot of dwelling on the idea that women are attracted to romantic bad guys.

‘He is Lord Leconbury’s son, married a rich American woman. Women are simply potty about him.’
‘Why?’
‘Oh, the usual reason—very good-looking and a regular bad lot.’
(Chapter 12)

I don’t know where we are on the idea that some women are attracted to bad boys. It’s been true in my experience, but my experience is just a drop in the ocean. It’s certainly a recurring trope in this story, because both the men in it are wrong ‘uns who both seem to be popular with the ladies and, in particular, with Katherine.

‘A mauvais sujet,’ said Poirot, shaking his head; ‘but les femmes—they like that, eh?’
He twinkled at Katherine and she laughed.
(Chapter 20)

But really the bad boy in question is Derek Kettering.

‘There are men who have a strange fascination for women.’
‘The Comte de la Roche,’ said Katherine, with a smile.
‘There are others—more dangerous than the Comte de la Roche. They have qualities that appeal—recklessness, daring, audacity…’

Poirot repeats the thought to Kettering:

‘Your reputation is bad, yes, but with women—never does that deter them. If you were a man of excellent character, of strict morality who had done nothing that he should not do, and—possibly everything that he should do—eh bien! then I should have grave doubts of your success. Moral worth, you understand, it is not romantic. (Chapter 24)

All this is relevant because by the middle of the novel it’s become clear that Katherine is being actively wooed, both by Kettering and by Knighton. On the face of it they represent two polar opposites: the smooth seducer versus the honest war hero. And we are shown Katherine developing feelings for both of them. But can it be as simple as all that?

Other sexisms

The story invokes what I assume to be another sexist caricature, namely that women are preternaturally attracted by the glamour of precious stones, in a way that men aren’t.

Her eyes grew misty, a far-away light in them. The Comte looked at her curiously, wondering for the hundredth time at the magical influence of precious stones on the female sex. (Chapter 19)

‘They are all the same, these women—they never stop telling tall stories about their jewels. Mirelle goes about bragging that it has got a curse on it. ‘Heart of Fire,’ I think she calls it.’
‘But if I remember rightly,’ said Poirot, ‘the ruby that is named ‘Heart of Fire’ is the centre stone in a necklace.’
‘There you are! Didn’t I tell you there is no end to the lies women will tell about their jewellery?’
‘You have the outlook cynical,’ [Poirot] murmured.
‘Have I?’ There was no mirth in his sudden wide smile. ‘I have lived in the world long enough, M. Poirot, to know that all women are pretty much alike.’ (Chapter 24)

Well, in that case, are not all men pretty much alike. In reality, this is a meaningless statement except to express a kind of worldly misogyny. As many other empty generalisations along these lines:

‘And yet, who knows? With les femmes, they have so many ways of concealing what they feel—and heartiness is perhaps as good a way as any other.’ (Chapter 26)

But maybe the general thought about all these sweeping generalisations – so easy to notice and condemn in our progressive times – is that genre fiction like this is based on generalisations about human nature. The generalisations may have changed with the times, but maybe genre fiction can only really function if it not only complies with the requirements of the genre itself, but also abounds in obvious, easy and stereotypical generalisations about human nature – reflecting the commonly accepted values of the day in order to make the whole thing easier to consume.

Men

And so along with generalisations about ethnic groups and women, there are also generalising, stereotypical remarks about men. When he and Zia step out of the casino at Monte Carlo, she points out this is the garden where so many men have committed suicide after losing everything.

Poirot shrugged his shoulders. ‘So it is said. Men are foolish, are they not, Mademoiselle? To eat, to drink, to breathe the good air, it is a very pleasant thing, Mademoiselle. One is foolish to leave all that simply because one has no money—or because the heart aches.’
(Chapter 28)

And here is Katherine’s old lady friend, Miss Viner, later in the novel:

‘I was wrong about that young man of yours. A man when he is making up to anybody can be cordial and gallant and full of little attentions and altogether charming. But when a man is really in love he can’t help looking like a sheep. Now, whenever that young man looked at you he looked like a sheep. I take back all I said this morning. It is genuine.’ (Chapter 30)

Sweeping generalisations about men and women are probably the oldest trope in all literature. Think for a moment about Shakespeare or Jane Austen.

Bookishness and self-referentiality

As I’ve pointed out in all my Christie reviews, she knows she is writing popular detective stories and part of this always seems to be having your characters point out that they seem to be appearing in a story which is remarkably like a piece of popular detective fiction. There’s a curious self-aware, meta aspect to these frequent reminders that the characters are in a fiction.

‘She has all the instincts of a lady, as they say in books,’ said Lenox, with a grin. (Chapter 12)

‘They say she is wearing a ruby the size of a pigeon’s egg—not that I have ever seen a pigeon’s egg myself, but that is what they always call it in works of fiction.’ (Chapter 31)

A central example is the way Poirot first bonds with Katherine while she is reading a crime novel and Christie gives them a little exchange about the value of such things.

‘I see, Madame, that you have a roman policier. You are fond of such things?’
‘They amuse me,’ Katherine admitted.
The little man nodded with the air of complete understanding.
‘They have a good sale always, so I am told. Now why is that, eh, Mademoiselle? I ask it of you as a student of human nature—why should that be?’
Katherine felt more and more amused.
‘Perhaps they give one the illusion of living an exciting life,’ she suggested.
(Chapter 10)

This allows Poirot, once the murder is revealed, to suavely suggest that she join him in solving the murder. And, in their conversations, to remind her (and the reader) of the conventions of the genre of the book they are reading.

‘You confess that you read detective stories, Miss Grey. You must know that anyone who has a perfect alibi is always open to grave suspicion.’
‘Do you think that real life is like that?’ asked Katherine, smiling.
‘Why not? Fiction is founded on fact.’
‘But is rather superior to it,’ suggested Katherine.
‘Perhaps.’
(Chapter 21)

This self-referentiality is partly, I think, humorous. It makes the reader smile. And also it is a continuous reminder of the whimsically artificial nature of these kinds of books.

Humour

For me the single biggest appeal of Agatha Christie’s books is her consistently buoyant humorous tone. The entire story is told in a kind of tone of indulgent good humour (the entire character of Poirot is essentially comic), as well as comic interactions between other characters. In this novel the comedy is pre-eminently associated with Lady Tamplin and her daughter. Lady T is funny because of her predictable tone of snobbery and avarice.

‘I should like to meet Mr. Van Aldin,’ said Lady Tamplin earnestly; ‘one has heard so much of him. Those fine rugged figures of the Western world’—she broke off—’so fascinating,’ she murmured. (Chapter 21)

Which is perfectly complemented by the droll and knowing comments of her daughter, Lady Lenox, in exchanges like this:

‘Mademoiselle [Katherine] is wanted at the telephone,’ said Marie, appearing at the window of the salon. ‘M. Hercule Poirot desires to speak with her.’
‘More blood and thunder. Go on, Katherine; go and dally with your detective.’

Or:

‘What did Major Knighton ring up about?’ inquired Katherine.
‘He asked if you would like to go to the tennis this afternoon. If so, he would call for you in a car. Mother and I accepted for you with empressement. Whilst you dally with a millionaire’s secretary, you might give me a chance with the millionaire, Katherine. He is about sixty, I suppose, so that he will be looking about for a nice sweet young thing like me.’ (Chapter 21)

And:

‘Major Knighton was very particular to say it was Mr. Van Aldin’s invitation,’ said Lenox. ‘He said it so often that I began to smell a rat. You and Knighton would make a very nice pair, Katherine. Bless you, my children!’ Katherine laughed, and went upstairs to change her clothes.

It’s fun.


Credit

‘The Mystery of the Blue Train’ by Agatha Christie was published in 1928 by William Collins and Son.

Related links

Related reviews

To Step Aside by Noel Coward (1939)

He felt a strong urge – as indeed who doesn’t? – to write a really good modern novel.
(Of Aubrey Dakers in ‘The Wooden Madonna’)

‘It’s a queer world and no mistake.’
(Aunt Tittie)

‘To Step Aside’ is a collection of seven short stories by Noël Coward, published in 1939. They aren’t great literature, meaning they aren’t notable for style or psychological depth, but they are entertaining enough – amusing, sad, wry, droll – oddly memorable and written in an attractively brisk, crisp, plain style.

List of stories

  1. The Wooden Madonna
  2. Traveller’s Joy
  3. Aunt Tittie
  4. What Mad Pursuit?
  5. Cheap Excursion
  6. The Kindness of Mrs Radcliffe
  7. Nature Study

Prose style

A commenter on GoodReads said she loved Coward’s ‘elegant’ style but that’s a classic example of people reading what they think ought to be there, based on the author’s reputation, rather than what’s in front of their eyes. In fact I found Coward’s prose more notable for its blank lack of style – the prose’s deliberate minimalism, the sense of looking at scenes through a pane of glass, reminded me of Christopher Isherwood.

Here’s an example of what I mean, from ‘Aunt Tittie’, describing Aunt Tittie’s arrival at a Spanish hospital:

Eventually we got to a very quiet ward with only a few beds occupied. A Sister of Mercy was sitting reading at a table with a shaded lamp on it. She got up when we came in. ‘Then the doctor took me downstairs to the waiting-room and said that he was afraid Aunt Tittie had a very bad appendix but that he was going to give her a thorough examination and make sure and that I’d better go home and come back in the morning. I said I’d rather stay in case Aunt Tittie wanted me, so he said ‘very well’ and left me. I lay on a bench all night and slept part of the time. In the early morning two cleaners came in and clattered about with pails.

See what I mean by minimalist and functional? It’s closer to the conscious minimalism of an Ernest Hemingway than the zippy, flippant style of Coward’s famous plays, and all the better for it.

‘To step aside’

The title of the book sounds innocuous enough but in fact contains a strong moral message. It is a quotation from a poem by Robert Burns, ‘Address to the Unco Guid, Or the Rigidly Righteous’, which is available online in the original Scots and an English translation:

The poem is an attack on the showily religious and morally self-righteous for being quick to judge anybody less high-minded and fortunate than themselves. The relevant lines are:

Then gently scan your brother man,
Still gentler sister woman;
Though they may go a little wrong,
To step aside is human…

In other words, the exact same message as the famous couplet from Alexander Pope’s 1711 poem, An Essay on Criticism:

Good-nature and good sense must ever join;
To err is human, to forgive, divine.
(Part 2, lines 424 to 425)

The Burns poem concludes:

Who made the heart, it is He alone
Decidedly can try us:
He knows each chord, its various tone,
Each spring, its various bias:
Then at the balance let us be mute,
We never can adjust it;
What is done we partly may compute,
But know not what is resisted.

These are ancient sentiments. The Pope is a literal translation of a well-known Latin tag from ancient Rome, ‘Errare humanum est’, while the idea that God alone knows the secrets of each soul and therefore we shouldn’t judge anyone else, is expressed by Jesus Christ in several places: ‘Judge not, lest ye be judged’ (Matthew 7:1) which is itself linked to ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ (John 8:1-11 ).

None of which has, of course, stopped the Christian authorities in every country where they had power from being ferociously judgemental – from banning, censoring, persecuting, imprisoning and burning alive anybody who departed from its narrow definitions of ‘normality’ and permissible thought, speech and action.

Coward’s mother was a devout Christian but Noel from his earliest boyhood thought the entire thing was ridiculous, and all his famous plays are mockeries of conventional, narrow and bigoted morality, and spirited defences of non-conformity, defiance and free living. Good for him.

1. The Wooden Madonna (17 pages)

Comic story of a naive young man in Switzerland convinced he is surrounded by spies who fails to recognise a real spy who uses him as an unwitting courier.

Aubrey Dakers, 27, is a former antique shop owner. We get a lot of backstory about his time running this shop with his partner Maurice. They do this very happily for 6 years until a series of unfortunate events puts an end to their happy life, being: 1) a titled lady opens a smarter boutique next door; 2) a fire in the basement destroys a number of their finest treasures; 3) Maurice gets pneumonia and has to go on an extended holiday; and 4) returns with a new Russia lover, announces he’s fed up with his current life, and promptly leaves for America.

Suddenly without a job Aubrey succumbs to a lifelong ambition and writes a play, a very obvious comical play, which a nice young man from Hounslow is persuaded to stage in the local theatre. To everyone’s surprise it becomes a smash hit success and promptly transfers to the West End, its success prompting giddy comparisons of young Aubrey to successful playwriting contemporaries such as Somerset Maugham and a certain Noel Coward.

At first being taken up by the worlds of the theatre and smart London society are exhilarating but after a year Aubrey is feeling the strain, especially the increasingly pressing need to follow up his dazzling success with something equally as dazzling. His new literary agent suggests he should try a novel rather than another play.

He felt a strong urge – as indeed who doesn’t? – to write a really good modern novel.

And so the narrative proper opens as Aubrey arrives in Switzerland, at a quiet hotel where he’s come for a rest cure and to try and figure out his next move. But barely has he unpacked and gone down to the bar than he is buttonholed Edmundson who he goes to great lengths to avoid but keeps turning up, following him, insisting on drinking and dining with him.

Now here’s the joke, the gag, the centre of the story: on the ship and the trains to Switzerland, Aubrey is consciously trying to be a novelist, closely observing everyone around him, his fellow passengers and crew and so on. His agent tells him to copy Somerset Maugham and so Aubrey, with comic earnestness, tries to be like Somerset Maugham, looking for mystery and secret passions everywhere. He takes to heart Maugham’s brilliant collection of spy short stories Ashenden, and looks for intrigue in everyone he meets. The one person he doesn’t look for it in is this tedious fellow Edmundson who keeps buttonholing at the bar, inviting himself to dine with Aubrey, telling endless boring yarns. And yet Edmundson is a spy. That’s the gag. He’s insistently buttonholing Aubrey because he’s going to use him.

Sure enough Aubrey can’t stand him so much that he announces he’s moving on, travelling on to Italy, to Venice. Edmundson asks if he can come with and when told no, insists on buying Aubrey a present from an antique shop they happen to be walking past at the time. It’s a wooden madonna, hence the title of the story and Edmundson forces it onto Aubrey, despite the latter’s misgivings.

Eventually, in a bid to escape him, Aubrey abruptly leaves his hotel and takes a sleeper train to Venice. In the middle of the night he wakes to find someone leaning over his bed and sleepily assumes it’s the ticket inspector. In the morning he wakes to find everything as it should be except that when he picks up the madonna it’s head drops off and he discovers the body is hollow. How odd! What he doesn’t realise but the reader does, is that Edmundson somehow inserted something valuable into the hollow statue, used Aubrey as an unwitting mule to carry it across the border into Italy, where it was opened and the secret contents retrieved by the mysterious figure in the night.

2. Traveller’s Joy (8 pages)

Portrait of a tired old actor and his sad affair with his middle-aged deformed landlady.

Herbert Darrell is a faded old actor, eking out his days at some provincial Theatre Royal. He lives in a room in a house which backs on to the dressing rooms, so he can see into his room when he’s making up. He has a ritual of slowly drinking a pint of Guinness as he applies his slap, and then drinking a few more while he’s waiting in the wings for his scenes. Sounds like an alky. In the early 1900s he was acclaimed as one of the great stage lovers of his time. That was 30 years ago. Now it’s 1934 and he’s old.

The story describes the sense of failure that afflicts him sometimes, in the early hours. Bad notices, being dropped from parts, consciousness of failure which sends him running to the nearest pub.

And moves on to describe the owner of the boarding house, Miss Bramble, in her 40s, who has a humped back and spindly little legs. He likes to reminisce about his many loves, recalling their bedrooms, the beds and furnishings, the funny little sounds they made, Julia Deacon, Marion Cressal, Minnie who he married.

It was while married to Minnie that his career began to go on the skids, his last part in the West End, coming home early from a party to find Minnie in bed with someone else.

At 7am on Sunday the alarm wakens Miss Bramble. Coward devotes a lot of time to a detailed description of what she sees when she opens her eyes, her sad bedroom. It is implied that she slept with Herbert Darrell the night before, before coming back to her bedroom. Apparently they have a routine where she gets up and makes his breakfast and takes it into his room as if nothing had happened.

She boils his egg and makes some toast and totters up to his second floor room but then puts the tray down and stares out the window at the churchyard not far away and feels sad how her aunt, whose house this used to be, would disapprove of how she’d let herself be seduced by a sad old has-been actor.

3. Aunt Tittie (27 pages)

Charming fictionalised account of young Noel’s induction into theatre life, but transposed from London to Edwardian Paris and beyond, full of bright colours until it ends in tragedy.

First-person narrative by a boy named Julian describing his ramshackle boyhood in south London. His mother, Amanda, had him out of wedlock and died in childbirth, at which point he passed to the care of his two aunts, Aunt Christina and Aunt Titania, the Aunt Tittie of the title.

The two women are diametrically opposite characters, Christina is a religious bigot while Titania is more free-spirited. Julian lives under the religious tyranny of Aunt Christina for years and records significant incidents from his boyhood and early adolescence. At last she dies, a sudden attack of pneumonia. Aunt Tittie’s estranged husband, Jumbo, takes him in for a day or two, thus giving a vivid insight into his life as a stage performer, before packing him off on the boat train to his Aunt Tittie in Paris.

And it’s here, after this very enjoyable pen portrait of an Edwardian boy’s upbringing, that the story really starts. For Julian discovers that his aunt works as an entertainer in a rough Paris club, the Café Bardac, populated by prostitutes male and female. She doesn’t have much money and so moves to get the club owner to pay the boy to become an assistant in her act with her partner Mattie Gibbons. Enough time is spent on all this for us to be introduced to all aspects of a cheap performer’s life in such a place, including the revelation that Aunt Tittie allows the club owner, Monsieur Claude, to take liberties with her.

But then one drunken night Tittie has a massive fight with Mattie which results in blows and blood and throwing up and next day she packs up and leaves. This inaugurates an epic odyssey across the continent of Europe and even across the sea to Algiers, which last for years and years, as kind Aunt Tittie gets jobs at numerous clubs in numerous cities, always on the lookout to hook up with a man who’ll look after her, which she succeeds in doing with a married man, Mr Wheeler – till his wife tracks him down and drags him home – and, elsewhere, with a rich old boy who keeps them in wine and roses for a while before he dies.

All this goes on for 6 long years packed with colour and incident, from Julian’s 11th to his 17th birthday, until there’s a disaster at a theatre they’re playing in Barcelona. It catches fire while a conjuror is doing a trick onstage, with the woman he’s going to ‘saw in half’ trapped in her cabinet. Julian runs round to find Tittie and they flee through the flames and smoke and screaming crowds, though she gets knocked to the floor and kicked by a fleeing stagehand.

It’s a disaster in which they lose much of their belongings but much worse, it exacerbates the pain Tittie’s had in her side for some time. Julian gets her to a hospital where the doctors find she has a burst appendix which has infected her abdomen. They put her on painkillers, she drifts in and out of consciousness, and then dies, leaving Julian, aged 17, all alone in the world.

There’s nothing modernist or avant-garde or experimental about the story at all. It’s just a rather exaggerated but straight-talking account of this fictitious boy’s life. And yet the feeling between him and his aunt, the closeness, her protectiveness, her honesty and love for him, all this come over and make it very memorable.

4. What Mad Pursuit? (39 pages)

Very funny satire about a successful English novelist, Evan Lorrimer, who travels to New York to start a series of lectures to promote his latest work.

At a penthouse party given by his American publisher, he meets a sensible-sounding American woman, Louise Steinhauser, who asks if he’d like to come and stay at her place in the country, with her and her husband, Bonwit Steinhauser, far from the city, with only one other guest, it’ll be lovely and quiet and he can rest and prepare for his lectures. Evan needs complete peace and quiet to do his work, in fact he makes a fetish of having the full eight hours sleep back in England, and so is easily persuaded and accepts a lift from the party to their tranquil house by the sea.

The comedy comes in when it turns out that this woman, Louise’s, idea of a quiet weekend is inviting loads of friends for lunch, preceded by umpteen cocktails, then insists they all pile into several cars and drive over to some neighbours who have even more guests staying, and many more drinks, until Evan is completely plastered and completely bewildered by the sheer number of strangers he’s being introduced to and their insistence that he join them in one more drink, play any number of games, strip and come swimming in an indoor swimming pool, and in general drive him to the edge of a nervous breakdown.

It’s a humorous and sometimes very funny depiction of that time-honoured subject, the innocent Englishman at sea in America.

Incidentally, the title is a literary quotation, from John Keats’s 1819 poem, ‘Ode to a Grecian Urn’, where he describes the scenes of ancient Greece painted on the side of the Greek urn.

What leaf-fring’d legend haunts about thy shape
Of deities or mortals, or of both,
In Tempe or the dales of Arcady?
What men or gods are these? What maidens loth?
What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?
What pipes and timbrels? What wild ecstasy?

‘What struggle to escape’ is particularly relevant, given Evan’s increasingly desperate attempts to escape the never-ending party which climax with him finally making it back to his allotted bedroom only to find another party guest strewn unconscious across it, at which point he thinks he might go mad with frustration.

Eventually he realises he must leave the madhouse and sneaks out in the middle of the night and walks through the snow, getting lost in the unfamiliar country but picked up by an early morning milkman and taken to the nearest train station and so, finally, exhausted and chastened, back to his hotel in Manhattan where he discovers, amongst his mail… a very polite offer from a lady fan in Chicago, that when he comes to lecture there. he is welcome to stay at her house, which is well outside the city and lovely and peaceful…

5. Cheap Excursion (13 pages)

A powerful journey into the nerve-racked anxious mind of famous actress Diana Reed, just reaching the dangerous age of 40, outwardly successful but lonely and unhappy. Right from the start we learn that she is having an affair with Jimmy the assistant stage-manager and is ashamed of it. It is portrayed as something she can’t help, which she’s ashamed of and desperate to keep from the rest of the cast because then word will spread throughout theatreland and her reputation will be in tatters.

The entire piece is set one evening after a performance, showing Diana arriving home at her flat, and consumed with anxiety, hoping Jimmy will ring, bitterly disappointed when the phone rings and she answers it but it’s just friends. Eventually so on edge that she decides she has to go and see him, at his digs over on the Strand, so she gets a taxi there and makes a complete fool of herself, working herself up into near hysteria, walking towards his flat but then horrified to see two of the other actors from the production she’s in walking towards her along the Strand and so ducking into a shop and in a blind panic buying the first thing she sees.

It is a persuasive study in nerves and anxiety and Coward conveys this by his precise attention to details, the kinds of details which reveal a person’s life or mind or habits:

Someone had once told her that if you sat still as death with your hands relaxed, all the vitality ran out of the ends of your fingers and your nerves stopped being strained and tied up in knots. The frigidaire in the kitchen suddenly gave a little click and started whirring. She stared at various things in the room, as though by concentrating, identifying herself with them she could become part of them and not feel so alone. The pickled wood Steinway with a pile of highly-coloured American tunes on it; the low table in front of the fire with last week’s Sketch and Bystander, and the week before last’s New Yorker, symmetrically arranged with this morning’s Daily Telegraph folded neatly on top; the Chinese horse on the mantelpiece, very aloof and graceful with its front hoof raised as though it were just about to stamp on something small and insignificant.

After getting a cab to his place, then abandoning it and getting a cab back towards Regent Street, she thinks she sees him walking along the pavement, leaps out and chases him into the Haymarket but a fraction before the grabs his arm he turns to look at her and it’s not Jimmy at all. She almost bursts into tears and realises she is overwrought but nonetheless heads back to his flat at the Adelphi but the lights are off there’s no-one home, so she takes to walking back and forth and sets herself a number of circuits before she’ll finally leave. Twenty pacings, back and forth. And she’s just about to finish and in a funny way has almost forgotten Jimmy when he turns the corner and she comes face to face with him.

So it’s Diana’s mad odyssey across central London which is the ‘excursion’ of the title. And the piece is a strange story of very everyday obsession, not Poe or anything baroque or extreme, just a middle-aged woman going almost out of her mind with frustrated love and anxiety.

6. The Kindness of Mrs Radcliffe (48 pages)

Mrs Radcliffe is 60-something and a religious prig and bigot. She is the worst kind of self-righteous moraliser, the kind who thinks of themselves as being especially sensitive and forgiving, while in reality being hard and small-minded and intolerant. She is always so ready to forgive those around her who aren’t lucky enough to be as kind and sympathetic and imaginative and artistic and moral as she is, the poor things! She is a martyr to her fine feelings.

It was, she reflected without bitterness, inevitable that a woman of her temperament should feel things more keenly, with more poignance than ordinary people. It was one of the penalties of being highly strung. After all, that awareness of beauty, that unique sensitiveness to the finer things of life, had to be paid for.

It’s not so much a story as a day in the life.

Mildred First she loses her temper at the orphan, resentful clumsy Mildred, who she’s taken into her home to become her maid when the latter spills the cooked breakfast she’s brought her onto the bedroom floor.

Matron Then she takes the train into London to see her semi-estranged grown-up daughter, but stops off at the orphanage she’s a vice-chairman of, to have a flaring argument with its matron, who she leaves in tears.

Marjorie and Cecil This daughter, Marjorie, ran off to marry a most unsuitable young man, Cecil who, although very handsome, is a complete failure of an artist, having sold one painting in the last 18 months. The couple live in a small house entirely funded by Mrs Radcliffe’s husband, Stanley.

An uncomfortable lunch (badly prepared and cooked) leads into a full-scale argument. Mrs R thinks it behoves her to tell Cecil some home truths i.e. isn’t it time he got a proper job? which in turn triggers Marjorie to tell her mother just what she thinks of her. At which point Cecil is wise enough to step in and shush her but then politely escort Mrs R off the premises.

Marion She has one more appointment, to meet a friend, Marion, at Harrods and walks there steaming with rage and resentment of her rude, unmannerly, ungrateful daughter. (With all these people – Mildred, Matron, Marjorie – Coward gives us quite a lot of backstory, which explains why this is the longest story in the collection.)

The Marion section describes how she and Mrs Radcliffe met at school when they were plain Adela Wyecroft and Marion Kershaw, the latter weak and silly and hero-worshipping tough Adela, star of the school lacrosse team. Now they meet in Harrods, wander round Knightsbridge when Marion remembers she promised to take Mrs R to the shop of a friend of hers, who turns out to be a wan and mousey loser, Maud Fearnley.

Maud Here Mrs R conceives the notion that Marion has brought her to this sad woman’s shop to get a commission and when she tries on a hat that actually does suit her very well, and spots feeble Maud giving Marion a triumphant glance, she becomes convinced of it and denounces the pair for setting her up like this. Of course she is completely wrong, mortally offends her old friend and reduces Miss Fearnley to tears but doesn’t give a damn and stalks haughtily out of the shop.

Lady Elizabeth Next scene is set in Hyde Park where she is sitting quietly reflecting on the perfidy of her friends and how difficult it is to be such a rarefied, sensitive and spiritual person, when a posh lady comes and sits on the bench opposite, who she recognises with a start to be Lady Elizabeth Vale.

Now Mrs Radcliffe is a snob, as we know from an earlier incident when a rough working class family insisted on invading her first class compartment on the train up to London until she intimidated them into getting out at the next stop. And so now we are treated to Mrs R’s having a comically pompous fantasy, as she imagines some charming little incident such as a little child falling over and Mrs R leaping to sweetly pick them up and dust them off, and how this earns the respect of Lady Elizabeth who just has to thank her, and who invites her for dinner and how they become firm friends and how this allows Mrs Radcliffe to everso casually show off her acquaintance with such refined company to the other female members of the orphanage committee, with whom she has a fierce but suppressed rivalry.

In the event there is comic bathos, because of a sweet little child to help Mrs R suddenly realises a smelly, ragged old beggarwoman has arrived at her bench wheedling for money. By the time she’s given this human wreck half a crown and got rid of her, Lady Elizabeth has risen and walked away without sparing her a second glance. Damn!

Dinner At the start of the story Mrs R had argued with her husband because he insisted on inviting a couple he likes to the dinner that evening which Mrs R had invited another couple to. Cut to after the dinner (which mostly went OK, apart from Mildred spilling custard on Mrs Duke’s dress) and the guests have departed, as Mrs R changes into her nightwear, puts curlers in her hair and face cream on, thinking her usual captious, uncharitable thoughts about the evening’s guests.

Stanley’s reproach Her husband appears. She expects him to kiss her goodnight and then go to his own room but to her surprise he tells her off for talking all the time one of the guests, Miss Layton, was playing the piano. She noticed and it upset her and made her cry.

Miss Layton we know is just the last of a list of people Mrs R has made cry today, starting with Mildred and including Matron, Marjorie, Marion and Maud. (I assume it’s a joke that their names all start with M.)

Mrs R now calls her husband idiotic, and he replies he may be idiotic but at least he’s not unkind and exits, slamming the door on the way out.

Mrs Radcliffe is left, not for the first time, trembling with fury. Oh! How everyone has had it in for her today! She kneels to pray to the good Lord but it takes her some time to get into the right frame of mind. But then she remembers giving half a crown to the beggar woman earlier in the day and that (although we saw that it was largely motivated by a snobbish desire to suck up to a watching aristocrat) reassures her that she is a kind woman, no matter what anyone says.

Coward and Christianity

Coward loathed organised religion, religious cant and moralistic humbug, all of which are repeatedly mocked by the smart young protagonists of his subversive 1920s plays. Rather than a head-on critique of Christian pride and hypocrisy, this story dramatises it in the shape of the sanctimonious and pompous believer Mrs Radcliffe, who makes everyone around her unhappy, with her bullying and superiority and snobbery, and yet has erected around herself an impenetrable wall of Christian bigotry which makes her incapable of even seeing the misery she causes wherever she goes.

This is a story and a character to be referenced whenever anyone is discussing Coward’s skewering of conventional ‘morality’ in his radical plays.

Mrs R and Mrs D

Mrs Radcliffe’s snobbery, self-righteous high-mindedness and lack of humour, combined with all this rambling round central London and episodic encounters, specifically sitting on a bench in the park, all these elements reminded me very much of Virginia Woolf’s Mrs Dalloway but with all that book’s consciously experimental avant-gardeness completely removed.

7. Nature Study (19 pages)

1

The unnamed first-person narrator is a playwright and writer on a cruise liner returning from the East towards the Suez Canal and the Med. One of the loudest of his fellow passengers is a Major Cartwright returning from India. When most of his cronies get off at Marseilles, Cartwright is at a loose end and buttonholes the narrator who is too kind to say no and so gets lumbered with this windy old bore.

At one point Cartwright invites the narrator to look through his old photo albums and there, amid pictures of huntin’, shootin’ and fishin’ parties, he spots someone he knows, Ellsworthy Ponsonby. Cartwright is excited to learn they have a mutual acquaintance and tells the narrator about meeting Ponsonby and being shown his fantastically luxurious yacht, out East, near Java. But he’d barely been shown round the yacht than Ponsonby told him the great tragedy of his life, that his adored wife left him for his chauffeur, and burst into tears. Damn sad thing!

2

At which point the narrative cuts suddenly, cuts back into the past to tell the story of how young Ponsonby met his wife-to-be, the fresh and lively Jennifer Hyde in a smart hotel in Italy just after the war. She is there with cousins and her aunt, he is there with his hawk-like scheming mother who, after doing research into Jennifer’s background, contrived to bring them together. They’ve just had some nice lunches and walks together when Ponsonby’s mother suddenly died.

3

The scene then cuts, just as abruptly, to 1933 when the narrator meets her, in the gambling rooms at Monte Carlo. The narrator reveals a very world-weary soul, familiar with all the best resorts in Europe and on familiar terms with all the best people, in fact bored of them. He hails Jennifer, gambles with her a bit, shares a drink, asks after Ponsonby (who he doesn’t like) who, she tells him, is away in Taormina. Suddenly, from her sharp movements and her overloud laugh, he realises she is wretched.

He remember back to when he first met her, young and fresh, in 1920 or 1921, just married to her rich American, and ponders how she has changed. He’s walking back to his hotel when a little Baby Fiat comes to a screeching halt right by him and it’s Jennifer. She tells him to jump in and drives him to his hotel but then, when they’ve parked, bursts into tears. He hugs her and tries to cheer her up and suggests they drive up to a local beauty spot and she tells him all about it.

Here, sitting by the woods and looking out over Cape Ferrat and the sea, she recapitulates her meeting with Ponsonby, how his mother schemed to bring them together then, when she died suddenly, how Ponsonby went to pieces and clung on to Jennifer who didn’t know what to do. She was only 19. He invited her for a long walk by the sea and spent hours telling her about himself, about how lonely and confused he was, about his teenage conversion to Catholicism and how he’d been offered a role in the Church by the family priest but it didn’t feel right, and how difficult life was for people like him, for ‘misfits’, on and on about all his problems, and then he asked her to marry him. They’d only known each other a week. And like a fool, she agreed. Why? Out of a naive sense of duty, she felt she was doing her good deed for the day, so they were quickly married in a registry office in Nice.

And then the problems began. His family disapproved. They had to eat humble pie and have a proper Catholic wedding in Boston. Some of his relatives were unpleasant. Sex turned out to be a big disappointment. He took her round the world, sure enough, to loads of glamorous destinations, but because things weren’t right with them, nothing was enjoyable. And so to her meeting with the narrator in London, by which time she’d already become experienced and hardened.

Because she had discovered that Ponsonby, despite all his money and perfect manners, was ‘mean, prurient, sulky and pettishly tyrannical almost to a point of mania’. By contrast Jennifer says, being much more innocent, and poor, and a woman, she prefers naturalness and kindness. Ponsonby and his kind are expert at identifying ancient paintings or sculptures as being of this type or that school, but:

‘I don’t believe it’s enough, all that preoccupation with the dead and done with, when there’s living life all round you and sudden, lovely unexpected moments to be aware of. Sudden loving gestures from other people, without motives, nothing to do with being rich or poor or talented or cultured, just our old friend human nature at its best. That’s the sort of beauty worth searching for; it may sound pompous, but I know what I mean. That’s the sort of beauty-lover that counts. I am right, aren’t I?’

This is placed in the mouth of a fictional character but it repeats the carpe diem theme repeated throughout the plays, and the worldview which is against stifling convention and in favour of life life life, as evidenced in a story like ‘Aunt Tittie’.

Anyway, the marriage deteriorated steadily, climaxing in some unpleasantness in New York wherein Ponsonby was blackmailed. Jennifer claims not to know the details but says she was forced to tell all kinds of lies (is this a hint that Ponsonby is gay? ‘He distrusted me, principally I think because I was a woman’?).

They sailed for Europe to get away from it all but he became steadily sarcastic and insulting, both in private and in public. Finally in Paris they had a blazing row. She told him she wanted a divorce but he went berserk, pointing out they were both Catholics so it was impossible. At which she told him what he really thought of him, that he was a terrified spoilt little boy who had used his mother and Catholicism as shields against the world. She stormed out and fled to London. He followed her and begged for her to return etc etc.

And this brings her up to date. This is her life, now. Ponsonby goes off now and then and does his own thing for a while, then comes back and they then entertain in Paris, or undertake Mediterranean holidays or cruises or whatnot, like everyone on their wealth bracket.

And that’s about it. They walk back to the car and, as dawn breaks, she drops him back at his hotel. On the way she says she’s thought about having an affair but never found anyone worth the risk and sacrifice. She’s everso grateful to him for having listened to her etc, gives him a nice peck on the cheek, and drives off.

4

And so the story cuts back to the present, four years after that conversation by the sea, and the narrator is sitting next to Major Cartwright with his photo album still open and he’s still in mid-stream, telling the narrator how Jennifer ran off with the chauffeur and how poor Ponsonby was gutted by it. Except that now we have a vastly bigger sense of who Ponsonby and Jennifer both were and why their marriage failed. And the narrator’s ghostly role as witness of various parts of the story. Very similar in structure and feel to many Somerset Maugham stories.

The final scene is simple. Cartwright packs away his photo albums and the two chaps go up on deck. It’s night-time, they see of a lighthouse on the French coast. The Major calls a steward for drinks. He says he can’t forget the memory of poor Ponsonby breaking down in tears. And imagine, he says, leaning forward, running off with a chap’s chauffeur! And the payoff, if that’s what it is, is the narrator quietly pointing out that that – i.e. the social humiliation – is what Ponsonby was really crying about.

The structure of the tale, with its big flashback in the middle, is hardly original, but it just worked very well, and I found this a deeply satisfying story, of its type.

Philip Hoare

In his excellent 1995 biography of Coward, Philip Hoare opines that the stories consistently succeed because the scene-setting and the characters are so well observed. The plots are less substantial. ‘The effect is all’ (Hoare, p.289).

Thought

In his own way, Coward’s insistence that there is no God and so we have to live for the moment and damn all the stupid restrictions of society, the way  his characters flout traditional morality and the narrow conventional lives so many people lead and want to impose on others, in order to live, now, to the maximum, to rejoice in the day – well, surprisingly maybe, I can see a secret brotherhood between the flippant, superficial, snobbish, gay Noel Coward and the aggressively heterosexual, anti-high society, anti-fashion and anti-jazz prophet of sex and the spontaneous life, D.H. Lawrence. In their different ways, both defied their native society and promoted life life life. And both could only do so, by moving abroad.


Related links

Related reviews

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

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

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

Preface

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 1. Lawrence and Myself When Young

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 2. Beginnings

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

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

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

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

Burgess makes a characteristically sweeping statement:

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

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

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

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

Chapter 3. The Denial of Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 4. Son and Lover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 5. Coming Through

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 6. Dementia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 7. Westward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 8. Nakedness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 9. A Snake and Sardinia

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

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

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

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

Chapter 10. The Prophecy is in the Poetry

This chapter covers:

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

Chapter 11. Eastward

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 12. A Comical-Looking Bloke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 12. Quetzalcoatl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 13. A Spot of Red

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 14. Life in Death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 15. A Woman’s Love

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 17. Death in Vence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 18. On The Side of Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burgessian vocabulary

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

Credit

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

Related reviews

St Mawr by D.H. Lawrence (1925)

St Mawr isn’t a place or a person, it’s the name of a horse, a great bay stallion, high spirited, dark and dangerous, whose image and personality dominate the narrative.

The story is set in 1923 (p.126). St Mawr is purchased by Mrs Witt, a rootless, wandering American millionaire widow (life story summarised on page 102), for her son-in-law Rico (real name Henry Carrington). She buys the horse for him so that he can join her and her daughter, Rico’s wife, Louise (Lou), on their rides along Rotten Row in London’s Hyde Park as part of London’s horse-riding upper class. Lou is American by passport but was sent to posh private schools across Europe with the result that she knows Rome better than any American city.

Louisiana family, moved down to Texas. And she was moderately rich, with no close relation except her mother. But she had been sent to school in France when she was twelve, and since she had finished school, she had drifted from Paris to Palermo, Biarritz to Vienna and back via Munich to London, then down again to Rome. Only fleeting trips to her America.

Rico is an Australian, son of a government official in Melbourne, who had been made a baronet. When his father dies, Rico becomes Sir Henry Carrington. Lou and Rico meet and fall in love in Italy, separate, their paths cross again at the resorts of the international rich. They make a handsome pair and so, despite misgivings, marry, and she becomes Lady Carrington, and they settle in a little house in Westminster (maybe not far from the town house of Virginia Woolf’s Clarissa Dalloway). In other words, they belong to the privileged international jet set of the 1920s.

Satire

Lawrence starts out deeply satirising them. Mrs Witt is an ungrateful monster who hates every city she settles in (Rome, Paris, London) while Lou is portrayed as wilful and spoilt. But Lawrence’s greatest scorn is reserved for Rico because he is the type of privileged but talentless ‘artist’ who infested the international scene (and, I imagine, still does) and which Lawrence loathed.

He and Lou manage to become ‘fashionable’ in London, although his painting never does. It is symptomatic that a relatively short time into their marriage, Lawrence tells us the couple stop having sex, it’s just too exhausting! Now for Lawrence sex is an indicator of a person consummating themselves, their lives, and so the couple’s sexlessness indicates their sterility.

So that’s how it starts off. However, as the narrative progresses, against the odds, the two American women, Mrs Witt and Lou, emerge as the main protagonists and most sympathetic figures in the story.

Geronimo/Phoenix

Like a certain type of international rich widow, Mrs Witt has acquired an ethnic pet, Geronimo Trujillo, an American, son of a Mexican father and a Navajo Indian mother, from Arizona. Characteristically, Mrs Witt refuses to call him by his given name (Geronimo) but insists on calling him Phoenix. He possesses the stereotypical Indian silence and remoteness.

Part 1. England

Rotten Row

So that’s the setup. The narrative gets going with Mrs Witt established in London and deciding to dress up to the nines and ride a horse along Rotten Row, joining but at the same time mocking and scorning the native English upper classes, ‘her eyes became dagger-like as she watched the clipped, shorn, mincing young Englishmen.’

Mrs Witt quickly coerces her daughter to join her and their striking appearance makes the papers. At which point they round on Rico and bully him into joining them. Mrs Witt having only brought two horses from her place in the country, they need to buy him a horse.

Enter St Mawr

The ladies keep their horses in a stable in a mews in Westminster. Next time she’s there, the owner, old maid-ish Mr Saintsbury, tells Lou he has a new horse for sale, St Mawr, seven and a half years old. Lou is immediately attracted to the skittish, rather dangerous big horse. It is a symbol.

She was already half in love with St. Mawr. He was of such a lovely red-gold colour, and a dark, invisible fire seemed to come out of him. But in his big black eyes there was a lurking afterthought. Something told her that the horse was not quite happy: that somewhere deep in his animal consciousness lived a dangerous, half-revealed resentment, a diffused sense of hostility. She realised that he was sensitive, in spite of his flaming, healthy strength, and nervous with a touchy uneasiness that might make him vindictive.

St Mawr as symbol of untamed life

In his introduction to the Penguin edition, Lawrence’s friend, biographer and critic Richard Aldington, says St Mawr is Lawrence. The other characters get the Lawrentian treatment (paragraphs describing their moods and feelings described in great detail, with much repetition of key words); but St Mawr is the only character which is worth that treatment.

The wild, brilliant, alert head of St. Mawr seemed to look at her out of another world. It was as if she had had a vision, as if the walls of her Awn world had suddenly melted away, leaving her in a great darkness, in the midst of which the large, brilliant eyes of that horse looked at her with demonish question, while his naked ears stood up like daggers from the naked lines of his inhuman head, and his great body glowed red with power.

What was it? Almost like a god looking at her terribly out of the everlasting dark, she had felt the eyes of that horse; great, glowing, fearsome eyes, arched with a question and containing a white blade of light like a threat. What was his non-human question, and his uncanny threat? She didn’t know. He was some splendid demon, and she must worship him.

And much more in the same vein. Lou very consciously contrasts her pretend artist husband, all ‘attitude’ i.e. fake, with the horse, whose demonic darkness is the real thing. The horse comes from another world, from Lawrence’s dark world of ancient gods.

She realised that St. Mawr drew his hot breaths in another world from Rico’s, from our world. Perhaps the old Greek horses had lived in St. Mawr’s world. And the old Greek heroes, even Hippolytus, had known it. With their strangely naked equine heads, and something of a snake in their way of looking round, and lifting their sensitive, dangerous muzzles, they moved in a prehistoric twilight where all things loomed phantasmagoric, all on one plane, sudden presences suddenly jutting out of the matrix. It was another world, an older, heavily potent world. And in this world the horse was swift and fierce and supreme, undominated and unsurpassed.

It speaks to something deep in Lou.

When he reared his head and neighed from his deep chest, like deep wind-bells resounding, she seemed to hear the echoes of another darker, more spacious, more dangerous, more splendid world than ours, that was beyond her. And there she wanted to go.

Unlike all the posh rich happy people they know and which Lawrence cordially detests.

People, all the people she knew, seemed so entirely contained within their cardboard let’s-be-happy world. Their wills were fixed like machines on happiness, or fun, or the-best-ever. This ghastly cheery-o! touch, that made all her blood go numb.

Events

Banned When out riding in the Park, Mrs Witt crowds St Mawr against a railing and he rears and nearly throws Rico. Rico scrambles off and Phoenix mounts and calms the horse. He terrified so many bystanders that the Park police are called and ban him from the Park.

Shropshire The Witt household decamp to Shropshire. Mrs Witt has rented a tall red-brick Georgian house looking onto a churchyard, and the dark, looming church, and moves there with Phoenix and her horses. Not far away live the Manbys, at Corrabach Hall, rich Australians returned to the old country and set up as squires, all in full blow. Rico had known them in Victoria: they were of good family: and the girls made a great fuss of him.

Outing Rico rides St Mawr over to the Manbys at Corrabach but has the devil of a time starting, getting properly saddled and then horse insists on going sideways onto the village pavements terrifying passersby before he sets off at a blistering almost out-of-control gallop.

Hair Mrs Witt insists on cutting Lewis’s hair.

Maiden name We learn that Mrs Witt’s maiden name is Rachel Fannière.

Men Mrs Will and Lou have a long conversation about the inadequacy of modern men. Mrs Witt admires men with mind but Lou thinks most modern thinking is just the clatter of knitting needles.

MRS WITT: ‘Man is wonderful because he is able to think.’
LOU: ‘But is he?’ cried Lou, with sudden exasperation. ‘Their thinking seems to me all so childish: like stringing the same beads over and over again. Ah, men! They and their thinking are all so paltry. How can you be impressed?’ (p.55)

And:

‘You’ve no idea how men just tire me out: even the very thought of them. You say they are too animal. But they’re not, mother. It’s the animal in them has gone perverse, or cringing, or humble, or domesticated, like dogs. I don’t know one single man who is a proud living animal.’

It’s symptomatic that, when Mrs Witt volunteered to work for the Ambulance Corps during the war she tended many men but never found a real man among them.

Pan The Manbys come over to visit along with a local artist, Cartwright. He looks a bit goatish and this leads into a 3-page discussion of the god Pan, the difference between the goat-satyr figure, the much huger great god Pan, whether he still exists anywhere, in anyone, how you can only see him if you know how to open your third eye.

Excursion The whole gang take to their horses on an excursion to ride to a local landmark, the Devil’s Chair. Once again, Rico has the devil of a time getting St Mawr saddled and then even mounting him, as the horse keeps shying and rearing. En route Mrs Witt is subjected to the conversation of Frederick Edwards, husband of one of the Manby girls, who subjects her to detailed descriptions of his fox hunting exploits, despite the latter’s broad American sarcasm.

The old England such as Lawrence thinks has all but been destroyed.

They came at last, trotting in file along a narrow track between heather, along the saddle of a hill, to where the knot of pale granite suddenly cropped out. It was one of those places where the spirit of aboriginal England still lingers, the old savage England, whose last blood flows still in a few Englishmen, Welshmen, Cornishmen. (p.71)

The war

They rode on slowly, up the steep rise of the wood, then down into a glade where ran a little railway built for hauling some mysterious mineral out of the hill in war-time, and now already abandoned. Even on this countryside the dead hand of the war lay like a corpse decomposing.

Feminism Lawrence assigns a little outburst of feminism to one of the silly Manby daughters, Flora. He equates feminism, suffragettism, women’s rights with the shallow, living-on-the-surface point of view, the partying and politics world, ignorant of the great dark depths which Lawrence values.

‘I think this is the best age there ever was for a girl to have a good time in. I read all through H. G. Wells’s History, and I shut it up and thanked my stars I live in nineteen-twenty odd, not in some other beastly date when a woman had to cringe before mouldy, domineering men.’

Lawrence’s mockery of this is just a subset of his contempt for the shiny happy people worldview prevalent in the 1920s, endless parties, endless entertainments, everyone having such fun. (Wells’s ‘Outline of History’ was published in 1919, so Flora is displaying how spiffingly up-to-date she is.)

The accident At the peak of this excursion, soon after they’ve reached the Devil’s Chair and looked out over the amazing view into Wales, St Mawr throws and falls on Rico, and when handsome young Edwards goes to rescue, kicks in the face.

Lou’s vision of evil Amid the general mayhem and panic, the others get the horse off Rico, Mrs Witt becomes practical American, checking his heart and bones, and Lou says she’ll ride back to the nearest farm to fetch some brandy.

On the way she has a massive 4-page-long vision of evil swamping the earth, and the only thing you can do is try to resist it. It’s a bewildering phantasmagoria of the earth swamped by great tides of evil in which Lawrence indicts both bolshevism and fascism but also the endless swarming rise in population and the West’s insistence on having a good time and partying while allowing the evil to spread corruption within. And against all this the individual must fight.

The individual can but depart from the mass, and try to cleanse himself. Try to hold fast to the living thing, which destroys as it goes, but remains sweet. And in his soul fight, fight, fight to preserve that which is life in him from the ghastly kisses and poison-bites of the myriad evil ones. Retreat to the desert, and fight. But in his soul adhere to that which is life itself, creatively destroying as it goes: destroying the stiff old thing to let the new bud come through. The one passionate principle of creative being, which recognises the natural good, and has a sword for the swarms of evil. Fights, fights, fights to protect itself. But with itself, is strong and at peace.

Rico survives. He has some broken ribs and a crushed ankle. He wants St Mawr shot at once.

Servile humans versus animal freedom These feel like sermons, like Lawrence the preacher letting rip.

All the slaves of this world, accumulating their preparations for slavish vengeance, and then, when they have taken it, ready to drop back into servility. Freedom! Most slaves can’t be freed, no matter how you let them loose. Like domestic animals, they are, in the long run, more afraid of freedom than of masters: and freed by some generous master, they will at last crawl back to some mean boss, who will have no scruples about kicking them. Because, for them, far better kicks and servility than the hard, lonely responsibility of real freedom.

The wild animal is at every moment intensely self-disciplined, poised in the tension of self-defence, self-preservation and self-assertion. The moments of relaxation are rare and most carefully chosen. Even sleep is watchful, guarded, unrelaxing, the wild courage pitched one degree higher than the wild fear. Courage, the wild thing’s courage to maintain itself alone and living in the midst of a diverse universe.

Man and animals We are unworthy of the animals we have subdued, enslaved and murdered in their billions.

She felt a great animal sadness come from him. A strange animal atmosphere of sadness, that was vague and disseminated through the air, and made her feel as though she breathed grief. She breathed it into her breast, as if it were a great sigh down the ages, that passed into her breast. And she felt a great woe: the woe of human unworthiness. The race of men judged in the consciousness of the animals they have subdued, and there found unworthy, ignoble. Ignoble men, unworthy of the animals they have subjugated…

Underneath it all was grief, an unconscious, vague, pervading animal grief… The grief of the generous creature which sees all ends turning to the morass of ignoble living.

Eunuchs Lou is horrified when she learns that her husband plans to sell St Mawr to the Manbys who will have it gelded. Lawrences makes it symbolise the sterility of modern civilisation.

The mean cruelty of Mrs. Vyner’s humanitarianism, the barren cruelty of Flora Manby, the eunuch cruelty of Rico. Our whole eunuch civilisation, nasty-minded as eunuchs are, with their kind of sneaking, sterilising cruelty. (p.97)

Lou and her mother are at one in despising modern men. Improbably, they both rejoice that full-blooded animal horse kicked the pathetic Freddy Edwards in the face.

‘The funny thing is, mother, they think all their men with their bare faces or their little quotation-mark moustaches are so tremendously male. That fox-hunting one!’
‘I know it. Like little male motor-cars. Give him a little gas, and start him on the low gear, and away he goes: all his male gear rattling, like a cheap motor-car.’
‘I’m afraid I dislike men altogether, mother.’
‘You may, Louise.’ (p.98)

They go on to enjoy the joke that, instead of giving Miss Manby the horse to geld, they should give her Rico, saying he’s already been emasculated. In other words, Mrs Witt and her daughter bond over the accident, deciding it’s them against the world, against men, against horrible England, and they are going to save St Mawr.

Mrs Witt and Lewis ride to Merriton

So far I have omitted to mention that St Mawr came with a small, dapper, self-contained Welsh groom, Morgan Lewis. He broke St Mawr into riding in the Park and then came with the rest of the party to Shropshire. Here his uncanny self possession and his quietly confident way with the difficult horse intrigues both mother and daughter (Mrs Witt and Lou).

Now, the two women learn that Flora Manby has been to see Rico at the farm where he’s recovering from the riding accident (fascinatingly, he hasn’t been transferred to a hospital but is just under the supervision of the local doctor, no specialist bone consultants etc) and bought St Mawr from him.

When they hear this, the Witt women decide to save St Mawr and Mrs Witt, on impulse, has Lewis saddle up St Mawr and her own horse and the pair set off heading east towards friends of hers in Oxfordshire, at a fictional place called Merriton. (In the days before A roads and the tyranny of the car you could, apparently, ride across country in any direction you wanted.)

Anyway, this ride takes several days and, with wild improbability, tough old Mrs Witt (51) is described as falling in love with small dapper Lewis. In the middle of the ride they see a shooting star and this triggers a 2-page hymn by the usually taciturn Lewis to the pagan rural beliefs of his boyhood. And this in turn makes Mrs Witt see in him something different from all the other useless posh English fops she’s met in this country. So in a mad scene, as they trot along on their horses, she proposes to him. Obviously he is non-plussed, then thinks she is teasing him, then, when forced, explains that his body is a kind of temple and he won’t allow any woman near it, specially any woman who has treated him and thinks of him as a servant. Mrs Witt is irritated then angered by his presumption and they both forget it ever happened.

The reader doesn’t, though. It has the strange illogical logic of Lawrence’s dreamworld, maybe. Aldington, in his introduction, says the incident is introduced solely to humiliate Mrs Witt, who Lawrence created in order to mock, but it doesn’t read like that at all. As the book continues Mrs Witt and Lou emerge as the strong satirical ones, superior to the empty headedness of 1920s culture and English chaps and chapesses.

For a moment the ghost hangs over the whole narrative, of the possibility that Mrs Witt will inappropriately pair off with Lewis and Lou will marry strong silent Phoenix. It’s as if these are the conventional, semi Mills and Boon romantic clichés which Lawrence gestures towards, before soundly rejecting.

Flora, Rico and Lou

Meanwhile, back in Shropshire, it becomes ever clearer that Flora Manby loves Rico who is falling in love with her, too. We saw how Lou and Rico were alienated, how she thought him shallow. When the accident occurred it was Flora who shrieked and ran over to the man trapped under the horse rather than Lou. As he’s been recovering at the farm (Flints Farm) Flora has visited him every day, brought lovely flowers and books to read. She manages his transfer to a car and transport to the Manby family home where she’s decorated a room on the ground floor for him.

Lou watches all this with sardonic amusement, and writes her mother about it. In their correspondence the two American women finalise their plans. Lou and Phoenix, and Mrs Witt, Lewis and St Mawr, are to make their separate ways to London. Here they arrive in August 1923. Lou is dismayed to realise how small and dingy the apartment she lived in all that time feels tom her. Like a back number. There’s just time for the visit of a caricature bright young thing, The Honourable Laura Ridley, for Lawrence to mock.

2. America

Mrs Witt arranges for them to be taken across the Atlantic not on a liner (simply too ghastly!), instead as passengers on a merchant vessel bound for Galveston Texas. The party are Mrs Witt and Lou, Phoenix and Lewis and St Mawr.

Past the Isle of Wight, into the Channel, across the grey Atlantic and into the dazzling blue harbour of Havana, Cuba. After a few days on to Texas and a train to the ranch they own and whose profits fund their travels round Europe. But Lou finds it unreal, the cowboys and ranchers like figures from a Zane Grey novel or, worse, a silent movie. St Mawr fits in though visibly different from the long-legged Texan horses. Phoenix loves being back among Spanish and Indians to gossip with. We hear little of Lewis, marooned among the big Texans.

So Lou and Mrs Witt motor to San Antonio, catch a train to Santa Fe and hole up in a hotel where Mrs Witt announces she has made her last decisions and takes to her bed.

Lou and Phoenix ride out into the desert to check out a ranch a Mexican wants to sell. Phoenix drives. On the journey Lawrence tells us that Phoenix is blossoming in his territory and fantasises about taking a white woman lover to enjoy her money and for daytime respectability, but to have many Indian and Mexican mistresses in the night time. And he thinks Lou fancies him. This is a big mistake as Lou is absolutely fed up with men, and the world, and just wants to be left alone.

She understood now the meaning of the Vestal Virgins, the Virgins of the holy fire in the old temples. They were symbolic of herself, of woman weary of the embrace of incompetent men, weary, weary, weary of all that, turning to the unseen gods, the unseen spirits, the hidden fire, and devoting herself to that, and that alone. Receiving thence her pacification and her fulfilment. Not these little, incompetent, childish self-opinionated men! Not these to touch her. (p.146)

Anyway, they arrive at the dusty, waterless primitive ranch, thousands of feet up a hill from the desert floor and Lou falls in love with it. Lawrence gives a massive 14-page description which mixes the stunning views and natural beauty with the story of the New England immigrants who built the place and struggled against the odds, and lack of water in summer and deep snowdrifts in winter, to raise a flock of goats, for their wool and goat’s cheese, and struggle and fail to make a go of it.

The intertwining of the old settlers’ doomed attempts to make a go of it, how they eventually gave up and sold out to a Mexican who has, in turn, failed to turn a profit, are skillfully blended with Lawrence’s astonishing powers of observation and description. He was a phenomenal travel writer, observing and turning into bombshells of beauty all his observations.

These last 20 pages of descriptions of the dusty desert, its cacti and pine trees and native flowers, make the starkest possible contrast with the story’s Shropshire section, particularly the horse excursion through the heather and ling and bilberries of the hillside towards Wales. Stepping right back from any characters and narrative, it’s a dazzling tale of two utterly different terrains.

So it is that Lou buys the ranch for $1,200 and persuades Mrs Witt to leave the hotel in Santa Fé and submit to being driven by Phoenix all the way out to this dusty outpost. The thing is, they won’t have to make a business of it, since they live on income from the ranch described earlier. it will simply be a retreat and Lou wants to retreat, to escape the world.

‘As far as people go, my heart is quite broken. And far as people go, I don’t want any more. I can’t stand any more. What heart I ever had for it – for life with people – is quite broken. I want to be alone, mother: with you here, and Phoenix perhaps to look after horses and drive a car. But I want to be by myself, really.’ (p.162)

The novella ends with a great speech by Lou explaining why she wants to escape men and their civilisation. The thought of going off in a taxi for cheap sex nauseates her. If she does have anything to do with a man again it will because of spiritual affinity. Meanwhile, she will live in the desert, pure and alone.

‘There’s something else even that loves me and wants me. I can’t tell you what it is. It’s a spirit. And it’s here, on this ranch. It’s here, in this landscape. It’s something more real to me than men are, and it soothes me, and it holds me up. I don’t know what it is, definitely. It’s something wild, that will hurt me sometimes and will wear me down sometimes. I know it. But it’s something big, bigger than men, bigger than people, bigger than religion. It’s something to do with wild America. And it’s something to do with me. It’s a mission, if you like. I am imbecile enough for that! – But it’s my mission to keep myself for the spirit that is wild, and has waited so long here: even waited for such as me. Now I’ve come! Now I’m here. Now I am where I want to be: with the spirit that wants me. – And that’s how it is. And neither Rico nor Phoenix nor anybody else really matters to me. They are in the world’s back-yard. And I am here, right deep in America, where there’s a wild spirit wants me, a wild spirit more than men. And it doesn’t want to save me either. It needs me. It craves for me. And to it, my sex is deep and sacred, deeper than I am, with a deep nature aware deep down of my sex. It saves me from cheapness, mother. And even you could never do that for me.’

And that’s how this strange, visionary novella ends. The two obvious points are that 1) right at the end this strong independent woman can only define herself against men, again and again, rather than in her own right. 2) Where’s St Mawr? I thought he was a symbol of life and freedom and the dark reality underlying the shallow tinsel of civilisation and yet, as soon as the team reach America, he disappears, and the last twenty pages of the book are this Hymn to the Desert.

Themes

Hatred of the modern world – ‘A great complicated tangle of nonentities ravelled in nothingness.’

Hatred of modern England, so cramped and nailed down.

The two American women stood high at the window, overlooking the wet, close, hedged-and-fenced English landscape. Everything enclosed, enclosed, to stifling. The very apples on the trees looked so shut in, it was impossible to imagine any speck of ‘Knowledge’ lurking inside them. Good to eat, good to cook, good even for show. But the wild sap of untameable and inexhaustible knowledge–no! Bred out of them. Geldings, even the apples.

High in the sky a star seemed to be walking. It was an aeroplane with a light. Its buzz rattled above. Not a space, not a speck of this country that wasn’t humanised, occupied by the human claim. Not even the sky. (p.109)

Hatred of the 1920s party mindset.

I felt I couldn’t sit there at luncheon with that bright, youthful company, and hear about their tennis and their polo and their hunting and have their flirtatiousness making me sick.

People, all the people she knew, seemed so entirely contained within their cardboard let’s-be-happy world. Their wills were fixed like machines on happiness, or fun, or the-best-ever. This ghastly cheery-o! touch, that made all her blood go numb.

I feel in the minority. It’s an awful thought, to think that most all the young people in the world are like this: so bright and cheerful, and sporting, and so brimming with libido. How awful! (p.121)

Hatred of what civilisation has done i.e. emasculate men and destroy the natural world.

Mrs. Witt thought she could detect the scent of furnace smoke, or factory smoke. But then she always said that of the English air: it was never quite free of the smell of smoke, coal smoke.

The darkness was never dark. It shook with the concussion of many invisible lights, lights of towns, villages, mines, factories, furnaces, squatting in the valleys and behind all the hills.

Great porpoises rolled and leaped, running in front of the ship in the clear water, diving, travelling in perfect motion, straight, with the tip of the ship touching the tip of their tails, then rolling over, corkscrewing, and showing their bellies as they went. Marvellous! The marvellous beauty and fascination of natural wild things! The horror of man’s unnatural life, his heaped-up civilisation! (p.135)

Hatred of modern men or men in general.

‘At the bottom of all men is the same,’ she said to herself: ‘an empty, male conceit of themselves.’

‘Isn’t it extraordinary,’ Laura continued, ‘that you never get a really perfectly satisfactory animal! There’s always something wrong. And in men too. Isn’t it curious? there’s always something – something wrong – or something missing.’ (p.131)

‘I can’t take those men seriously. I can’t fool round with them, or fool myself about them. I can’t and I won’t fool myself any more, mother, especially about men. They don’t count.’ (p.163)

‘I don’t hate men because they’re men, as nuns do. I dislike them because they’re not men enough: babies, and playboys, and poor things showing off all the time, even to themselves. I don’t say I’m any better. I only wish, with all my soul, that some men were bigger and stronger and deeper than I am…’ (p.164)

Hatred of the continent.

Soon, the ship steering for Santander, there was the coast of France, the rocks twinkling like some magic world. The magic world! And back of it, that post-war Paris, which Lou knew only too well, and which depressed her so thoroughly. Or that post-war Monte Carlo, the Riviera still more depressing even than Paris. No, no one must land, even on magic coasts. Else you found yourself in a railway station and a centre of civilisation in five minutes. (p.133)

Lawrence on film

Notable how Lawrence invokes analogies to film and cinema when describing the Texas ranch where our gang arrive and Lou’s sense of how empty and rootless it is.

It was all so queer: so crude, so rough, so easy, so artificially civilised, and so meaningless. Lou could not get over the feeling that it all meant nothing. There were no roots of reality at all. No consciousness below the surface, no meaning in anything save the obvious, the blatantly obvious. It was like life enacted in a mirror. Visually, it was wildly vital. But there was nothing behind it. Or like a cinematograph: flat shapes, exactly like men, but without any substance of reality, rapidly rattling away with talk, emotions, activity, all in the flat, nothing behind it. No deeper consciousness at all. So it seemed to her.
One moved from dream to dream, from phantasm to phantasm.
But at least, this Texan life, if it had no bowels, no vitals, at least it could not prey on one’s own vitals. It was this much better than Europe.
Lewis was silent, and rather piqued. St. Mawr had already made advances to the boss’s long-legged, arched-necked glossy-maned Texan mare. And the boss was pleased.
What a world!
Mrs. Witt eyed it all shrewdly. But she failed to participate. Lou was a bit scared at the emptiness of it all, and the queer, phantasmal self-consciousness. Cowboys just as self-conscious as Rico, far more sentimental, inwardly vague and unreal. Cowboys that went after their cows in black Ford motorcars: and who self-consciously saw Lady Carrington falling to them, as elegant young ladies from the East fall to the noble cowboy of the films, or in Zane Grey. It was all film-psychology.
At the same time, these boys led a hard, hard life, often dangerous and gruesome. Nevertheless, inwardly they were self-conscious film heroes.
(p.137)

Women protagonists

I’m struck by the way that story after story is about women, takes a woman or women for its leading protagonists, takes the women’s point of view. I’m struck by how these authors write at vast length about women, women’s emotions and feelings and perspectives, make women the leading figures, the deepest and most sympathetic characters.

  • The Rainbow – Anna, Ursula
  • The Ladybird – Lady Daphne
  • The Fox – Ellen March
  • St Mawr – Rachel and Louise Witt
  • The Plumed Serpent – Kate Leslie

All these female protagonists and yet you don’t have to read far to come across Lawrence’s fundamentally sexist, male point of view.


Credit

‘St Mawr’ by D.H. Lawrence was first published in 1925. Page references are to the 1984 Penguin paperback edition, where it is packaged with ‘The Virgin and The Gipsy’.

Related links

Related reviews

The Good Soldier: A Tale of Passion by Ford Madox Ford (1915)

That is the plain English of it, and I suppose plain English is best.
(The ostensibly artless, candid tone of the narrator, John Dowell)

Forgive my writing of these monstrous things in this frivolous manner. If I did not I should break down and cry.
(Confession of his emotional devastation, p.60)

Perhaps all these reflections are a nuisance; but they crowd on me. I will try to tell the story.
(Artlessly excusing the cleverly episodic narrative structure)

I know nothing – nothing in the world – of the hearts of men. I only know that I am alone – horribly alone.
(His utter failure and alienation)

Ford Madox Ford (1873 to 1939) was a prolific author of the late-Victorian and Edwardian era, leaving some 70 volumes to his name. ‘The Good Soldier’ is generally acknowledged to be his best novel and was his personal favourite.

First the facts. The 228-page novel is told in the first person by an American man. Like lots else about the story, we only get his name well into the text, and even then only in fragments, first learning his surname is Dowell, and 20 pages later, and then only casually, in dialogue, that his first name is John. As he sits down to tell the story he is 45.

This tiny detail, the carefully delayed revelation of his name, can be taken as emblematic of the aim and technique of the entire thing, for ‘The Good Soldier’ is a deliberate, canny, teasing puzzle. Only slowly can the reader piece together the following facts:

  • the narrator was married to an American woman named Florence, née Hurlbird
  • a boat trip they took from Britain to France was so stormy and stressful that it affected his wife’s heart and doctors said another boat trip would kill her, so the couple were, in effect, marooned in Europe, circulating around the usual middle-class resorts and spa towns, for her health
  • one evening, at the Hotel Excelsior in Nauheim, they met a charming English couple, Captain Edward ‘Teddy’ Ashburnham, home on leave from his regiment in India, and his wife Leonora Ashburnham, tall and horsey

The four got on very well and became a sort of item, a quartet, who met every year at the same resorts (for half the year the Ashburnhams stay at their estate Branshaw House near the village of Branshaw Teleragh in Hampshire). Over time they became inseparable and used to following the same routine at whichever resort town they were staying in. Breakfast together, followed by trips to tourist sights, or walks or rides. Luncheon followed by a rest. Dinner then cards or conversation.

The striking thing about them, Dowell reflects, is how on the surface their relationships were, how everything was polite and just so. They were ‘good’ people, not rich, just comfortably off (in fact surprisingly precise details are given of the income of Teddy’s large estate in England and of Florence and Dowell’s inheritances, page 179). Teddy is tall, handsome and amiably dim:

It struck him, he said, that brainy Johnnies generally were rather muffs when they got on to four legs.

He was so presentable and quite ready to lend you his cigar puncher – that sort of thing.

While Leonora is tall and white skinned and chilly. But then, precisely nine years and six weeks after they first met, in four tragic days, the tranquil facade of their lives was torn to shreds, terrible secrets were revealed and two of the quartet lost their lives. How? Why? What? These shocking events are what the dazed narrator sets out to make sense of and we accompany him on his shattered odyssey of understanding.

Puzzling

Which is why the narrator finds himself, disillusioned and appalled, confused and bereft, trying to make sense of what happened by writing the account we’re about to read.

A lot of the book’s tremendous appeal comes from the tone of voice created by this narrator, who comes over as sympathetic, well-intentioned, utterly devastated but continually obtuse, unperceiving, hopelessly puzzled. His nonplussed state extends to sharing with us that he doesn’t even know how to tell a story. His characteristic move is to ask a question about this or that aspect of the friendship and then wail ‘I don’t know, I don’t know’ which becomes a catchphrase.

Is all this digression or isn’t it digression? Again I don’t know…

For whose benefit did she do it? For that of the bath attendant? of the passers-by? I don’t know…

What could they have done better, or what could they have done that could have been worse? I don’t know…

It is this part of the story that makes me saddest of all. For I ask myself unceasingly, my mind going round and round in a weary, baffled space of pain—what should these people have done? What, in the name of God, should they have done?

Every few pages, in the middle of mentioning a topic, he candidly admits that he knows nothing about it and understands less. Female psychology, English society, English attitudes towards religion, Catholic doctrine, love and attraction, human nature, he barely understands any of them:

I do not know much about English legal procedure… (p.153)

I don’t know exactly what [her spiritual advisers] taught her.

I did not know much about housekeeping expenses in England… (p.180)

I don’t attach any particular importance to these generalizations of mine. They may be right, they may be wrong; I am only an ageing American with very little knowledge of life. (p.219)

He makes a big deal of not understanding the ranks or social etiquette of the British Army, pretends never to have heard of Simla, the famous town built by the Raj in the foothills of the Himalayas where imperial administrators could retire from the heat of the plains (p.155).

I am no good at geography of the Indian Empire.

Above all he continually volunteers his sense that he is failing to explain the story properly, to get it down, to achieve his aim of making us really see his friends and understand their fates.

It is very difficult to give an all-round impression of a man. I wonder how far I have succeeded with Edward Ashburnham. I dare say I haven’t succeeded at all. (p.140)

Who in this world can give anyone a character? Who in this world knows anything of any other heart – or of his own? (p.144)

Eventually he settles on the conceit of imagining that the person he’s writing for (‘O silent listener’) is sitting with him in a country cottage, on the other side of the hearth in front of a roaring fire, as he tells the story – but this image, though he recurs to it a couple of times, doesn’t last long or really help. What he’s trying to set down is too complex and confusing.

What’s so brilliant, enjoyable and wonderful about the book is that it really sounds like someone genuinely struggling to make sense of a great emotional disaster which has utterly wrecked his life and his faith in people and belief in a moral universe.

Because what slowly emerges, in fragments, first as hints, and then in devastating revelations, is that everything he thought true about his wife and this other couple of ‘good people’, for nine long years of friendship and stability, turns out to be howling lies.

It turns out that his cold, calculating wife never had a heart condition. She invented it in order to be pampered and looked after but, above all, to obviate all physical relations with her husband. And, in the name of calmness and security, insisted she slept in her own room with the door locked. For the 12 years of their marriage she treated him as no more than a ‘trained poodle’ (p.114). It is only in the shattering four days of revelations that the narrator learns that all the locked door business was the better to entertain a string of lovers, chief among whom, was his friend Edward Ashburnham.

For Ashburnham turns out to have been a world-class philanderer. Before Leonora met him he had nearly been prosecuted for kissing a servant girl at his house, a scandal the Hampshire establishment hushed up. But even after they were married, Edward had a series of affairs. But it wasn’t just that. He plunged the household into financial crisis after crisis.

In Monte Carlo he fell madly in love with ‘a cosmopolitan harpy who passed for the mistress of a Russian Grand Duke’, in fact a Spanish dancer named La Dolciquita, who demanded tens of thousands of pounds before she’d sleep with him. But like the imbecile he was, Ashburnham thought he’d make the money gambling in the casino but, of course, lost even more tens of thousands of pounds.

All this was in the last years of Queen Victoria’s reign, in the late 1890s, when a thousand pounds meant something. The income from his estate was in the tens of thousands, but still, this was reckless folly. Once Leonora realised what her husband was like and began investigating his affairs, she discovered he was also being blackmailed by people who knew about other affairs of his. At around the time the narrator and Florence met the Ashburnhams, he was having an affair with mousey little Maisie Maidan. This poor woman really did have a heart condition and had been persuaded by Leonora to leave her husband (also serving in India) to visit the spa towns of Europe. When she realised that she had essentially been pimped for Ashburnham’s sexual desires, she was distraught, and did, eventually die.

But Maisie Maidan was, for Ashburnham, just a stepping stone towards the great passion of his life, who was the narrator’s wife, Florence. In fragments, memories, random scenes and snatched dialogue, Dowell pieces together a portrait of a complex character, Florence Hurlbird, from a southern family, who needed a man with income to take her away from her stifling family, and settled on Dowell, a rootless aimless man with a comfortable fixed income.

Later in the third quarter of the book, he describes, in fits and fragments, the upbringing and characters of Leonora and Edward, she a sheltered convent girl, he a virginal jolly good chap, paired off by their parents and all-too-quickly realising they had nothing in common.

Ford’s storytelling technique is gold standard, it’s a masterclass of the craft. As his narrator sits day after day at a table in a house in Hampshire, trying to piece together the series of events, he builds up, by a mosaic or almost a cubist technique, portraits of the three other members of the quartet, seen from multiple angles, via numerous episodes, visited and reinterpreted again and again, over this nine-year period, and every angle, facet and fragment, takes us deeper, builds up a fascinating and fantastic multi-levelled, intricately complex narrative. And all underpinned by the age-old aesthetic principle, that the most naive and artless effects, are the result of the most cunning contrivance.

I have, I am aware, told this story in a very rambling way so that it may be difficult for anyone to find their path through what may be a sort of maze. I cannot help it. I have stuck to my idea of being in a country cottage with a silent listener, hearing between the gusts of the wind and amidst the noises of the distant sea, the story as it comes. And, when one discusses an affair – a long, sad affair – one goes back, one goes forward. One remembers points that one has forgotten and one explains them all the more minutely since one recognizes that one has forgotten to mention them in their proper places and that one may have given, by omitting them, a false impression. I console myself with thinking that this is a real story and that, after all, real stories are probably told best in the way a person telling a story would tell them. They will then seem most real… (p.167)

4 August

As calculated as everything else in the narrative, Ford makes the date 4 August ring out through the book as a symbolic, talismanic date, a fateful date.

4th of August: Florence born.

4 August 1899: Florence sets out with her uncle for the tour round the world in company with a young man called Jimmy.

4th of August 1900: the owner of a house party, Mr Bagshawe, sees Florence coming out of the room of a man named Jimmy who, it is assumed, she had sex with.

4th of August 1901: Florence marries John Dowell and sets sail for Europe in a great gale of wind.

4 August 1904: Maisie Maidan dies of shock at realising Leonora persuaded her to come to Europe, not for her health, but to become a mistress to her husband Edward.

4 August 1913: Florence realises Ashburnham has dropped her to seduce the orphan girl who the Ashburnhams have raised since she was a girl, and commits suicide by taking a phial of prussic acid (p.97). Therefore this is last day of the narrator’s absolute ignorance and perfect happiness (p.95).

The unreliable narrator

The narrator is a brilliant fictional creation. I found his permanent air of confusion very plausible and winning, the crucial basis of the narrative; it is his obtuseness about the true nature of his own wife and two best friends on which the whole thing depends.

His stupidity means that he is continually shocked and passes this shock onto the reader. It’s a startling revelation that he only found out his wife was having an affair with Ashburnham a) when Teddy and Florence are both dead and b) only when Leonora tells him, in passing, in the most casual offhand manner, because she thinks he already knows (p.101). But he didn’t and is staggered, as a result, he tells us, going into a kind of zombie catatonic state of shock for days.

And I thought nothing; absolutely nothing. I had no ideas; I had no strength. I felt no sorrow, no desire for action, no inclination to go upstairs and fall upon the body of my wife. (p.103)

In his stupidity he didn’t even realise that his wife killed herself; he thought she was having one of her heart spasms and took some medicine to calm it, but the medicine failed. It takes Leonora to explain there wasn’t any medicine in the phial but arsenic – Florence wanted to die (p.101).

And yet, as the narrative progresses, somehow Dowell’s candour becomes harder to believe. He starts out saying he loved his wife, he enjoyed the company of bluff Teddy and aloof but terribly polite Leonora and thought they all made a wonderful happy quartet of friends… But then, as revelation after revelation piles up you come to realise that no one could be that obtuse and stupid, that the evidence was all around him.

So the narrator is both a person – an appealingly candid character we’re meant to relate to (and I do) –but also a narrative device which comes to seem more and more contrived (which I also acknowledged, and at the same time).

He comes over as naive and innocent and frank and candid… But what lies and deceptions is the narrator himself concealing? I bet if you really studied it and read it two or three times, you’d begin to tease out the inconsistencies which imply much greater knowledge and awareness than he lets on… and that, too, is part of the exquisite enjoyment.

The philanderer’s philosophy

It’s a novel about two adults, a man and a woman, Edward and Florence, who can’t stop having adulterous affairs. As it happens Ford was quite the philanderer himself, leaving his wife for another woman and then having a series of affairs. So for two reasons it’s interesting to read his narrator’s thoughts on the subject.

I have come to be very much of a cynic in these matters; I mean that it is impossible to believe in the permanence of man’s or woman’s love. Or, at any rate, it is impossible to believe in the permanence of any early passion. As I see it, at least, with regard to man, a love affair, a love for any definite woman—is something in the nature of a widening of the experience. With each new woman that a man is attracted to there appears to come a broadening of the outlook, or, if you like, an acquiring of new territory…

And the fading of that early passion:

Whatever may be said of the relation of the sexes, there is no man who loves a woman that does not desire to come to her for the renewal of his courage, for the cutting asunder of his difficulties. And that will be the mainspring of his desire for her. We are all so afraid, we are all so alone, we all so need from the outside the assurance of our own worthiness to exist. So, for a time, if such a passion come to fruition, the man will get what he wants. He will get the moral support, the encouragement, the relief from the sense of loneliness, the assurance of his own worth. But these things pass away; inevitably they pass away as the shadows pass across sundials. It is sad, but it is so. The pages of the book will become familiar; the beautiful corner of the road will have been turned too many times… (p.109)

And the narrator attributes to the noble Leonora, devout Catholic and convent educated, a similarly simple and primeval view of women’s role vis-a-vis men:

She saw life as a perpetual sex-battle between husbands who desire to be unfaithful to their wives, and wives who desire to recapture their husbands in the end. That was her sad and modest view of matrimony. Man, for her, was a sort of brute who must have his divagations, his moments of excess, his nights out, his, let us say, rutting seasons… The lot of women was patience and patience and again patience. (p.170)k

Vivid

I love books more than music or movies or TV because of what writing can do, which is convey the world in words, something I find intoxicating; and also for the never-ending number of ways simple words, arranged in beguiling rhythms, revealing unexpected notions, can surprise you and make you sit up.

Certain women’s lines guide your eyes to their necks, their eyelashes, their lips, their breasts. But Leonora’s seemed to conduct your gaze always to her wrist. And the wrist was at its best in a black or a dog-skin glove and there was always a gold circlet with a little chain supporting a very small golden key to a dispatch box. Perhaps it was that in which she locked up her heart and her feelings.

She gave me, suddenly, yet deliberately, one long stare. Her eyes too were blue and dark and the eyelids were so arched that they gave you the whole round of the irises. And it was a most remarkable, a most moving glance, as if for a moment a lighthouse had looked at me.

A feminist digression

Though women, as I see them, have little or no feeling of responsibility towards a county or a country or a career – although they may be entirely lacking in any kind of communal solidarity – they have an immense and automatically working instinct that attaches them to the interest of womanhood. It is, of course, possible for any woman to cut out and to carry off any other woman’s husband or lover. But I rather think that a woman will only do this if she has reason to believe that the other woman has given her husband a bad time. I am certain that if she thinks the man has been a brute to his wife she will, with her instinctive feeling for suffering femininity, ‘put him back’, as the saying is… (p.219)

Is this at all true? Do women have a feeling for ‘the interest of womanhood’ which men don’t have for ‘the interest of manhood’? In my anecdotal experience, many women do have a fellow feeling for other women, in other countries, in other situations, which I and most of the men I know just don’t have for men in other countries, or even this country, or even in the same pub.

A note on the timeline

Because of the year of publication, 1915, and the title, you would be forgiven for thinking it was a novel about the First World War, but it very much isn’t. It was completed before the war began and its earliest portions are set two decades earlier. Ashburnham and Leonora are married in the early 1890s (1892) because it takes a few years for their marriage to fall apart, for Leonora to take control of his estate, rent it out and take him back to his regiment in India, and for some years to pass in India before the outbreak of the Boer War in October 1899.

Edward and Leonora

The last quarter of the book shifts its focus onto Edward and Leonora as the narrator retells the story of their unhappy marriage, from both perspectives, explaining the process of slow alienation which led Leonora to conspire with the family solicitor to finally seize control of Edward’s land, assets and income, and give him a paltry allowance. How she was so disgusted by his affair with La Dolciquita as to become physically frigid towards him, a lofty hauteur which only increased as Edward had affairs with the wife of a colonel in his regiment, and then poor Maisie Maidan.

Her tragedy was that, all the time, she thought that if she only waited long enough, Edward would burn out his pashes for other women, would be so impressed by her efficient running of the estate and building back up of his fortunes, that he would, eventually, come back to her.

And then she realised he was having an affair with Florence, the narrator’s wife, and her entire world crashes in ruins. It comes to a head in a scene he described early in the novel, when all four of them went on an innocent expedition to the castle in Germany where Martin Luther took refuge from the Inquisition, after he’d published his theses. The narrator senses a powerful atmosphere of agony and fraughtness and suddenly, inexplicably, Leonora shrieks and goes running out of the room, across the huge halls and out into the courtyard. When Dowell catches up with her she babbles something about how she is a Catholic and so this is where the Reformation started, the damning of so many millions of people including her poor husband – and at the time this makes a sort of rather mad sense to the narrator. Only much later does he learn that what triggered her panic attack was when she saw Florence lightly put her hand on Edward’s wrist and Edward turned to her with that look in his eyes… and then Leonora knew they were having an affair, and the ten or so long years of putting up with Edward’s behaviour and keeping the finances on a tight leash and depriving herself of life’s little luxuries in the name of financial prudence… all came crashing down in flames around her ear.

It’s like that, this book, full of fantastically charged scenes which the narrator doesn’t understand, which only much, much later is he able to puzzle out and understand and we, the readers, share in this restless work of poring over the fragments and making sense of his devastated life. Extraordinary things happened and were said and he interpreted them one way. And then, years later, he discovered that everything he had seen and heard and said himself, was wrong, hopelessly wrong. And isn’t life all too often like that?

It is a queer and fantastic world. Why can’t people have what they want? The things were all there to content everybody; yet everybody has the wrong thing. Perhaps you can make head or tail of it; it is beyond me. (p.213)

There are more characters, and levels of complexity which I haven’t mentioned, namely the role played by the niece Nancy Rufford, her appalling family upbringing, her hero worshipping of Edward, and the grim and melodramatic fates of both Edward and Nancy, all described in ever-increasing agony and horror in the last 50 pages… Read it and find out. It’s a quite brilliant book, a masterpiece.

And, at the same time, Leonora was lashing, like a cold fiend, into the unfortunate Edward. Or, perhaps, he was not so unfortunate; because he had done what he knew to be the right thing, he may be deemed happy. (p.191)

I don’t know. I know nothing. I am very tired.

I don’t know. I leave it to you… (p.220)

Mini me

Society must go on, I suppose, and society can only exist if the normal, if the virtuous, and the slightly deceitful flourish, and if the passionate, the headstrong, and the too-truthful are condemned to suicide and to madness. But I guess that I myself, in my fainter way, come into the category of the passionate, of the headstrong, and the too-truthful. For I can’t conceal from myself the fact that I loved Edward Ashburnham – and that I love him because he was just myself. If I had had the courage and virility and possibly also the physique of Edward Ashburnham I should, I fancy, have done much what he did. He seems to me like a large elder brother who took me out on several excursions and did many dashing things whilst I just watched him robbing the orchards, from a distance. And, you see, I am just as much of a sentimentalist as he was. (p.227)


Credit

The Good Soldier: A Tale of Passion by Ford Madox Ford was published by Bodley Head in 1915. References are to the 1972 Penguin Modern Classics paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews

The Grand Babylon Hotel by Arnold Bennett (1902)

Thinking the matter out in the calmness of solitude, all seemed strange, unreal, uncertain to her. Were conspiracies actually possible nowadays? Did queer things actually happen in Europe? And did they happen in London hotels?
(Nella, pondering how the plot is thickening, The Grand Hotel Babylon page 62)

‘Perhaps you haven’t grasped the fact, Nella, that we’re in the middle of a rather queer business.’
(Nella’s dad, explaining, p.54)

I don’t know, Mr Babylon, whether you have ever tried to creep through a small hole with a skirt on. Have you?’
‘I have not had that pleasure,’ said little Felix, bowing again.
(An example of the book’s charming surrealism)

‘This isn’t a burglary, my dear. I calculate it’s something far worse than a burglary.’
‘What?’ she cried. ‘Murder? Arson? Dynamite plot? How perfectly splendid!’
(Nella’s character in a nutshell, p.172)

This is a preposterous farrago, a ridiculously entertaining, over-the-top, mystery thriller from the earliest days of the genre, and quite a surprise coming from the Edwardian novelist Arnold Bennett, who’s mainly remembered for his long earnest novels about life in the Potteries district of the Midlands.

Here’s a brief biog of Arnold pinched from Wikipedia:

Enoch Arnold Bennett (27 May 1867 to 27 March 1931) was an English author, best known as a novelist, who wrote prolifically. Between the 1890s and the 1930s he completed 34 novels, seven volumes of short stories, 13 plays (some in collaboration with other writers), and a daily journal totalling more than a million words. He wrote articles and stories for more than 100 newspapers and periodicals, worked in and briefly ran the Ministry of Information during the First World War, and wrote for the cinema in the 1920s. Sales of his books were substantial, and he was the most financially successful British author of his day.

His first novel was a fairly serious effort, ‘A Man from the North’. ‘Hotel Babylon’ was the second, published in instalments in a magazine called the Golden Penny during 1901.

It’s a frolic, an entertainment, Bennett’s attempt at a mystery thriller, capitalising on the popularity of shortish mystery novels being written by loads of contemporaries, not least the Sherlock Holmes novels and all their copyists (The Hound of the Baskervilles was published the same year). It’s not a mature work, it doesn’t speak with the voice he would find to write his many serious novels about the Potteries region of the Midlands.

To begin with it reminded me of the not very good early work of Robert Louis Stevenson, the New Arabian Nights, specifically the way each new development in the silly plot feels random and forced. The Sherlock Holmes stories have lasted so long because Doyle put a lot of effort into making his plots carefully crafted puzzles, with a modicum of plausibility. As you work through them you realise there is a plan, there is a secret, and it’s worth trying to work it out.

By contrast, the story of ‘The Grand Hotel Babylon’ gives the strong impression of having no plan at all and of Bennett more or less making it up as he went along. The introduction to the Penguin Classics edition praises it for ending every chapter on a cliffhanger but there’s quite a difference between giving the reader a steady sequence of clues to work out the puzzle (Holmes) and just serving up a series of sensational surprises! Thus ‘The Grand Hotel Babylon’ is packed with mysterious disappearances, secret passages, kidnappings and passings out, with a whole litany of sudden wilful events which feel completely implausible and, as a result, childishly enjoyable.

Part of this can be explained by, or derives from, the personality of the central character, the wilful American heiress, Nella Racksole, 23-year-old daughter of the famous American millionaire, Theodore Racksole, a ‘tall spare man, with the iron-grey hair and the thin, firm, resolute face’ (p.156).

Nella knows what she wants and always gets it, simple as that. There’s absolutely no subtlety or maturity about her character – Nella wants it, Nella gets it. She talks to men of all types of classes with utterly fearless candour which sometimes amazes herself and always astonishes them.

He was astonished at her coolness, her firmness of assertion, her air of complete acquaintance with the world. (p.62)

She was tremendously surprised at her own coolness, and somewhat pleased with it.

The foursquare frankness with which she faces every situation and keeps surprising all the male characters by her fearlessness, reminded me of a children’s story based round a fearless girl character, something like Pollyanna or Annie or Pippy Longstocking.

When I described the centrality of Nella not only as a character but also somehow embodying the spirit of the book my daughter said, ‘It sounds like a nellodrama.’

The critics compare it more with Anthony Hope’s 1894 novel The Prisoner of Zenda and its sequels, because it involves a minor European princeling from a made-up eastern European country (Ruritania) and probably that is a more apt comparison / source for Bennett’s story.

But this is all to take it far too seriously. It’s a sixpenny murder mystery, written for the lolz and the entertainment. You’re meant to be amused and entertained and marvel as one preposterous development follows another in quick succession…

Plot summary

Nella is staying at the Grand Babylon Hotel with her American millionaire father, Theodore Racksole, ‘the third richest man in the United States’, worth some 40 million dollars.

Theodore has already irked the fantastically superior head waiter, Jules, by asking for an American cocktail, an Angel Kiss (‘equal quantities of maraschino, cream, and crême de menthe. Don’t stir it; don’t shake it’).

In the dining room Nella surveys the posh menu, throws it away and declares she wants a dinner of steak and a bottle of Bass beer. When Theodore instructs Jules, he replies that this is impossible, the world famous chef Rocco, would never stoop to such a thing.

So Theodore gets up, walks through the hotel to the office of the owner, short dapper Félix Babylon, and buys the hotel off him, lock stock and barrel for £400,000. Félix is happy to sell as he’d been thinking about retiring anyway although he warns Theodore that any major hotel is a hotbed of crime.

‘Do you not perceive that the roof which habitually shelters all the force, all the authority of the world, must necessarily also shelter nameless and numberless plotters, schemers, evil-doers, and workers of mischief?’ (p.26)

Theodore then calls in the chef, Rocco, and, as the new owner, gives him a pay rise (to £3,000 a year) and orders him to prepare the steak.

During this meal a friend of Nella’s shows up, a charming young man named Reginald Dimmock. As he serves the steak, Theodore notices Jules winking at Dimmock. Why?

Dimmock explains he works for Prince Aribert of Posen. His nephew is Grand Duke Eugen of Posen and that the Grand Duke is scheduled to marry a wealthy relation soon. During the conversation Jules brings Prince Aribert a succession of notes.

After dinner Theodore goes to see Félix again, in his private office, and they talk about hotel management till the early hours when Theodore decides to go roaming round his new possession.

After getting lost he finds himself on the second floor when he hears footsteps. He hides in a niche and observes Jules approaching a door with a white ribbon on it, silently opening the door and letting himself in, only to emerge a few minutes later and walk away.

When Theodore goes up to the door he sees it is room 111, the room his daughter is occupying. He runs off to his own room, collects his American revolvers then runs after Jules and grabs him. Waving his gun around he demands to know what Jules was doing breaking into his daughter’s apartment.

All suavity and self control Jules insists that 111 is not his daughter’s room so they both go back to check. On knocking and entering they discover the current occupant of the room is Reginald Dimmock. He explains that for some reason a stone was thrown through the window of the room and this so upset Nella that she asked the hotel servants to change rooms, a discussion Dimmock stumbled upon and immediately offered to switch rooms with her. At that moment Nella’s maid appears who confirms the whole story. Theodore is humiliated in front of Jules and Dimmock.

He goes to bed disturbed by ‘the wink’, puzzled by the business with the white ribbon, worried about the stone being thrown which broke the window, but with no specific accusation to make of anyone.

Next morning Theodore visits Félix who is preparing to pack and leave. The latter informs Miss Theodore that the long-serving hotel secretary, Miss Spencer, has packed her bags and disappeared.

Theodore installs himself in Félix’s office. First thing he does is call for Jules and sacks him. He makes it clear he’ll put every other hotel in London off hiring him. With dreamlike imperturbability Jules isn’t at all fazed and announces he will retire to an apartment somewhere and become a man about town.

That afternoon Theodore and Félix go to a banker then a stockbroker to seal the purchase of the hotel. Theodore tells Félix he intends to settle in England: there’s more to buy here than back in the States. Maybe he’ll buy a grand place in the country, too.

When he returns to the hotel he discovers his cheeky daughter Nella has installed herself in the hotel booth to replace Miss Spencer. he tells her off but she refuses to budge. They’re in the middle of this when appears His Serene Highness Prince Aribert of Posen.

Turns out Nella met the Prince last year in Paris when he was going under the name Count Steenbock, which he hurriedly asks her not to mention again. Mystery…

Aribert is surprised to learn that Theodore has bought the hotel. He explains that he is late arriving for his room because he was waiting for his assistant, Reginald Dimmock, to meet him at Charing Cross but Dimmock didn’t show up which is most unlike him.

Nella invites Aribert along to her father’s private office (previously Félix’s office) for a private chat, tea is served by servants. He reminisces about Paris, how they were both guests in a quiet, out of the way hotel, how they spent a rainy afternoon together in the Museum of the Trocadéro. He is, in other words, attracted by her nubile form and beauty and beginning to flirt. He tells her quite a bit more about the royal family of Posen and we learn that, should anything happen to Prince Eugen, Aribert would be next in line to the throne, when…

The door opens and Theodore enters accompanied by two staff who are carrying a figure on a stretcher. It is the body of Reginald Dimmock. He is dead! Collapsed walking across the quad of the hotel according to bystanders. Theodore speculates it was a heart attack.

Aribert asks the men to take the body of his assistant to his rooms and a little later they’re joined by a doctor who makes an examination and says he doesn’t think it was a heart attack but will need to do a closer examination.

That night a big ball is given in the Gold Room by the financier Mr Sampson Levi and his wife. Theodore has discovered the hotel has a secret room with a spyhole to look out over the Gold Room. To his surprise he spots Jukes mingling among the guests and runs out to confront him. But on the dancefloor he can’t find him and comes back to the cubby hole to find…Jules in it, using the spyhole!

The confrontation is not as fiery as you might expect. Theodore simply asks Jules to leave the hotel and he does. Theodore stays up all night, watching food arrive at the hotel from Covent Garden, happens to watch a big bundle of luggage going down in the lift and being loaded into a delivery van.

A little later Theodore is summoned to the Prince’s ante-room where a police inspector is, they indicate an empty coffin, and explain that the corpse of Mr Dimmock which has been deposited there has disappeared!

Theodore is left with the nagging feeling that he is being outwitted by some conspiracy centred on Jules but what it’s about is anyone’s guess.

Nella wants to make more of her acquaintance with Aribert and, three days later, contrives for her carriage to bump into his carriage as it trundles along the Embankment. She invites him to lunch in her father’s office.

Here Aribert reveals the big thing that’s been bothering him: he was scheduled to meet Prince Eugen but Prince Eugen has vanished! Somewhere between Brussels, where he was last seen, and the quay at Ostend where he was due to catch a ferry but never did.

Nella is instantly convinced that Eugen has been kidnapped! On what basis? On the basis of the secret wink between Dimmock and Jules and then the mysterious death of Dimmock. She tells Aribert to go back to Berlin to check that Eugen left. He kisses her hand as she leaves and she cherishes that kiss.

Next morning a plump old white-haired lady claiming to be Baroness Zerlinski arrives at the hotel. Nella watches her closely, convinced she’s seen her somewhere before. At lunch she sees her scoop the cream out of a cream puff and extract a piece of paper from it – a secret message! Could it be from Rocco the chef? Saying what?

Back in her bureau Nella has a flash of insight and realises ‘Baroness Zerlinski’ is Miss Spencer in disguise. She runs down to the office to ask if the Baroness has made any plans for dinner, where she can confront her, but discovers the Baroness left half an hour ago. Her luggage was addressed to Ostend – Ostend where Prince Eugen has gone missing! Without telling her father, Nella books herself on the 11pm ferry from Dover to Ostend.

In Ostend

Leaving the ship and walking onto Ostend quay at 2am Nella wonders what on earth she’s doing. How on earth is she going to track down Miss Spencer? Bennet enjoys bigging Ostend up:

The town was silent and almost deserted. It had a false and sinister aspect. She remembered tales which she had heard of this glittering resort, which in the season holds more scoundrels than any place in Europe, save only Monte Carlo. She remembered that the gilded adventurers of every nation under the sun forgathered there either for business or pleasure, and that some of the most wonderful crimes of the latter half of the century had been schemed and matured in that haunt of cosmopolitan iniquity.

Then, in one of the book’s most howling coincidences, she sees steam and is told it’s the 8am ferry from Dover which broke down and is arriving very late. Nella watches the gangway and the fist passenger to walk down it is…none other than Miss Spencer!

Miss S gets into a carriage so Nella immediately gets into the one behind in the queue and tells it to follow that carriage! It brings her to an anonymous looking house. Nella goes up to the door, demands to see Miss Spencer and to be let in.

‘I guess so,’ said Nella, and she walked past him into the house. She was astonished at her own audacity.

Nella confronts Miss Spencer, asking what she knows about Jules, the death of Reginald Dimmock and the disappearance of Prince Eugen. Miss Spencer gets up and pulls a bell rope as Nella pulls out an American revolver!

Nella now extracts a lot of backstory from Miss Spencer. Miss Spencer is married to Jules except his real name is Tom Jackson. She is terrified of him and does what he tells her to. It was Tom ordered her to get the job at the Babylon Hotel and then Tom who told her to up sticks and come to Ostend. She doesn’t know anything about Dimmock’s death. She was told to come to Ostend to guard Eugen. So he’s here? In this house??

Miss Spencer keeps wailing that she can’t say any more or it’ll be death for her and pretends to faint. When Nella goes to see if she’s alright, Miss Spencer leaps up, grabs the gun and throws it out the window (why? why not keep it in her hand?). Now Nella is at her mercy and feels suddenly weak and vulnerable. She hears footsteps coming along the hall, the door opening, a rush of cold air and then she, too, faints.

When she regains consciousness she is on a yacht out at sea. it is being steered by an imperturbably captain. A man comes up on deck and it is Jules. He is super suave and confident. He claims to know nothing about Dimmock’s death or any conspiracy. He is attracted to her bravery, in fact when she says she would rather starve than touch the breakfast he offers her, he replies:

‘Gallant creature!’ he murmured, and his eyes roved over her face. Her superb, supercilious beauty overcame him. ‘Ah!’ he said, ‘what a wife you would make!’ He approached nearer to her. ‘You and I, Miss Racksole, your beauty and wealth and my brains—we could conquer the world. Few men are worthy of you, but I am one of the few. Listen! You might do worse. Marry me. I am a great man; I shall be greater. I adore you. Marry me, and I will save your life. All shall be well. I will begin again. The past shall be as though there had been no past.’

And Jules/Tom pushes closer to her to take a kiss. When with a cry a male figure leaps up out of the lifeboat and whacks Jules with a revolver knocking him unconscious. It is none other than Prince Aribert!

Back in London

Cut back to London where Theodore has invited Mr Sampson Levi to a meeting. After some preliminary sparring, Levi explains a big bit of the picture. He, Levi, is known as ‘The Court Pawnbroker’ because he arranges loans for the minor, second-class Princes of Europe. Prince Eugen was coming to London to meet him, Levi. Levi has promised to loan the prince £1 million to clear the Prince’s vast debts, run up by gambling and fast living. The Prince needs to clear his debts because it’s only by being able to show a clean sheet that he will be allowed to marry an heiress, Princess Anna of Eckstein-Schwartzburg, who’ll bring more than enough money to pay off the loan. Eugen hasn’t shown up. As to Dimmock, Levi explains that Dimmock is actually a distant part of the Posen princely family. But as to why Dimmock died and Eugen has disappeared, Levi hasn’t a clue. But Theodore does. What if some other European pauper prince wants to marry Princess Anna? Then they would want to keep Eugen out of the way till the possibility of a loan from Levi has fallen through…

Levi departs and Theodore goes to see Rocco. The great chef is so suave and confident that Theodore immediately sees he must be in on the conspiracy. But his aim in going to see him is to tell Rocco (falsely) that the police are coming to turn the hotel upside down looking for Dimmock’s body – with a view to flushing Rocco out.

Because Theodore has had a revelation. What was so significant about room 111 that Jules came sniffing round it that first evening only to discover his daughter had been replaced in it by Dimmock? Theodore’s revelation is that room 111 is directly above the hotel’s premise State Rooms. So that night Theodore lets himself into room 111 and goes poking around in it. Eventually he discovers a secret panel under the bath which gives way, which gives onto a hole, which has a rope ladder hanging down.

Theodore lights a match, goes carefully down the rope ladder and finds himself in a secret alcove behind one of the walls of the State Rooms. There’s a spyhole and through this he spies someone working at a huge marble-topped washstand. It is Rocco!

Rocco is bending over and working on something and slowly it becomes clear it’s a body! Theodore goes to climb up the rope ladder but it snaps tumbling him back down and accidentally opening a secret door into the State Room. So he confronts Rocco.

But as in previous confrontations it all goes with a weird dreamlike calmness. Rocco just says ‘Oh well’, sits down and admits that his name is Elihu P. Rucker and he’s from West Orange, New Jersey, New York State. Theodore now confirms the body he was working on was that of Dummock, and Rocco explains he was simply embalming Dummock’s body so it wouldn’t start to rot. As to whether he was murdered, Rocco says ‘not exactly’ and that he disapproved of bumping off Dimmock. He confesses that Dimmock was part of the scheme but then changed his mind. Rocco confirms that Jules is the mastermind of the whole plot and formerly his boss but that he started to disagree with him a week or so back.

Rocco is so quiet casual and disarming that Theodore guides him along to the nearest lift, intending to hand him over to the police, when Rocco suddenly bursts into life, pushing Theodore into the lift, slamming home the metal grille and locking him in. He is then politeness and suavity itself, apologises for the inconvenience and calmly strolls away.

Fuming and disgusted at his own gullibility Theodore spends the entire night in the lift till staff find him the next morning and unlock it. The detective in charge of the Dimmock case turns up and wants to take Theodore to a particular location when a messenger arrives with an urgent telegram from Nella: ‘Please come instantly. Nella. Hôtel Wellington, Ostend.’ So, leaving the detective in the lurch, within ten minutes Theodore is on his way to Victorian Station.

Back in Ostend

We left Nella on the steam yacht just after Prince Aribert had leaped out of the dinghy to rescue Nella just before Jules leaned over and kissed her. He ties Jules up. Meanwhile the captain of the yacht continues to steer away from Ostend. When Aribert points his gun at him he explains he is under orders to sail for England absolutely whatever happens on deck and won’t be persuaded to turn round. Reluctantly our guys realise their only option is to get into the dinghy, have it lowers into the water, and row back to Ostend. So that’s what they do.

On the way Aribert explains what happened: he had meant to go to Berlin as agreed but in the end changed his mind and instead happened to see her get in the carriage and follow Miss Spencer to the house, so he followed her. He climbed round the house and managed to overhear her whole conversation with Miss Spencer. When Miss Spencer grabbed the revolver and threw it out the window, Aribert picked it up. Then the silence when Nella fainted. He didn’t see who came into the room but was aware that she was carried out the house into a carriage.

He followed in his carriage down to the harbour where, in the general loading he managed to smuggle himself aboard and hide in the dinghy (just the latest in a series of heroic improbabilities). Thrown together like this, and building on the earlier conversations and the moment when he kissed her hand, it’s clear they’re falling in love:

They were both young; they both had superb health, and all the ardour of youth; and—they were together. The boat was very small indeed; her face was scarcely a yard from his. She, in his eyes, surrounded by the glamour of beauty and vast wealth; he, in her eyes, surrounded by the glamour of masculine intrepidity and the brilliance of a throne. (p.115)

Fit young Aribert rows strongly and they make it back to the harbour by 6am the next morning. Suddenly she’s shattered. He takes her to the hotel he’s staying in, they have chocolate on the terrace and that’s when Nella sends the telegram to her father that he received in the previous chapter.

Chapters are funny things. The mere existence of chapters tells you how utterly fake and artificial fictions are. The idea that texts come anything close to ‘reality’ is shot to pieces by the way chapters allow authors to divide their texts and carve up events or experiences into boxes and bite-sized chunks.

And now we cut to when Theodore arrives on the afternoon of the same day. Theodore, Nell and Aribert hold a conference in a private room and catch up with each other’s news. They decide two things: 1) Theodore sends Nella bed, this isn’t woman’s work (as if that’ll stop her); and 2) Theodore and Aribert decide to return to the house.

They’re still not certain what’s going on but Theodore shares what he learned from his interview with Levi, namely that Eugen was coming to borrow £1 million to pay off his debts. He thinks Eugen was put out of the way because another European princeling wants to marry the heiress and names the King of Bosnia.

It’s only 9.30 so to kill time before they go to The House, Theodore and Aribert go the famous (?) Ostend casino. Here they come across a glamorous lady wearing a red hat, she’s a bit solid so the narrator nicknames her the Juno of the red hat. Aribert says he has seen her before, in Berlin. She is glamorous but intimidating. Theodore is lucky (he just is) and wins a series of hands against the house and the Juno.

After her final loss she gets up and angrily exists. Our heroes follow. She gets into a carriage, they get into one that follows her. Inevitably she is heading for The House. When she gets out and enters, our chaps go round the back, climb over the fence and go close to a window where they hear a feverish conversation between red hat and Miss Spencer. They hear just the most incriminating piece of conversation they need to, namely red hat demanding more money, saying she’s lost everything at the casino, demanding to be paid more because she’s done her job of luring him to Ostend. Of course she must be referring to Eugen.

And, indeed, when our boys step back from the window they realise there’s a grating at the their feet and peering down through it they see the figure of Prince Eugen slumped in a chair!

So they break in through the window to the room the two women have vacated, open the door into the hall to see the front door ajar, presumably where red hat has left. There are stairs downwards and a corridor and at the end they encounter Miss Spencer with a knife. Her ferocity is driven by panic fear of Jules, she fiercely says they shall not pass and when Theodore walks forward she stabs him in the arm.

Shocked he takes off his coat and is in the middle of reasoning with her when he throws it over her head, grabs her arms and Aribert disarms her. They carry her to an upstairs bedroom and lock her in. They break down the door and confront Eugen.

Eugen is, of course, delirious, babbling about the woman with the red hat, saying he can’t go with them, till he passes out and they carry him to the sofa upstairs. They’re just wondering what to do when there’s a scrabbling at the window and guess who’s turned up but Nella! Of course she turns out to have attended New York medical school and so after a quick examination concludes that Eugen has ‘brain fever’.

With this diagnosis and her grasp of the situation, Nella assumes an air of command. She orders her father to go and get a doctor (who diagnoses brain fever and prescribes some medicines) and meanwhile supervises Aribert making his nephew comfortable. The trio settle in to occupy the houses and days pass as the get food, cook, and supervise Eugen. To begin with the patient gets worse.

One evening Aribert realises how thin and exhausted Nella looks and sends her to bed. He worries what will happen if Eugen dies, how the devil will he explain it to the emperor. He hears a sound and goes out into the hall to discover Nella has fainted there. He carries her ‘slender figure’ to a sofa, whispers to her and kisses her. When she comes to she swears she saw Jules at the foot of her bed, he laughed and left her room and she came running downstairs.

But then she remembers he kissed her and the conversation takes a serious turn as Aribert asks Nella to marry him. But scarcely are the words out of his lips than they hear a crash of glass. When Aribert goes to the back window he sees a ladder leaned against the wall and a figure at the end of the garden. When they go upstairs to the bedroom they locked Miss Spencer in, she has gone!

London

Cut to London a few days later where Prince Eugen is occupying the State Rooms at the Babylon, attended by his old servant Hans. He is cleaned and well dressed but he is not the man he used to be. He seems nervous and has a haunted look. When he and Aribert talk, the latter wonders if he’s mad. Slyly Eugen points out he saw Aribert kiss Nella but tells him it can come to nothing, the Emperor will not permit them to marry.

Aribert runs past him his understanding of the situation: Eugen needs a loan from Sampson Levi in order to pay off his debts and present a clean sheet to the parents of Princess Anna of Eckstein-Schwartzburg who will bring with her a dowry big enough to pay off the loan. He is relying on borrowing this £1 million from Sampson Levi who set a deadline for his loan to be taken out. But Eugen has a rival for the hand of the princess, the King of Bosnia. And he commissioned Jules and his gang to lure Eugen into a trap using the Juno with the red hat as bait. Eugen thinks they kidnapped him in order to get a ransom but Aribert counters with the simpler idea that Jules’s people just needed him out of the way till the deadline for the loan expires.

And this turns out to be the case for in the next scene Mr Sampson Levi visits prince Eugen and regrets to tell him the deadline for the loan expired and he has lent the money in South America (to the Chilean government). Eugen begs, says Levi made a promise etc but Levi says no it was Eugen who made the promise and broke it so…no loan. He bows and goes out.

The narrator moralises, invoking one of the oldest tropes of all writing, the tragic lament for the fallen and degraded times we live in – except that, in line with the tenor of the this preposterous book, it is cast in a comic mode:

It was a scene characteristic of the end of the nineteenth century – an overfed, commonplace, pursy little man who had been born in a Brixton semi-detached villa, and whose highest idea of pleasure was a Sunday up the river in an expensive electric launch, confronting and utterly routing, in a hotel belonging to an American millionaire, the representative of a race of men who had fingered every page of European history for centuries, and who still, in their native castles, were surrounded with every outward circumstance of pomp and power. (p.153)

After Levi has gone Eugen melodramatically (or should that be ‘nellodramatically’) announces he has only one option: to kill himself.

Meanwhile Theodore has gone for a stroll out into the city, along the Strand and who should he bump into but Félix Babylon. Félix explains that he got bored of Switzerland (where he was planning to retire) and missed the excitement of London. Félix gives Theodore an expensive cigar and they stroll arm-in-arm back towards the Babylon, like the comfortable plutocrats they are.

Here, over grilled chicken and champagne, Theodore briefs Félix on the extraordinary events which have taken place since the original owner left. When Theodore describes coming across Rocco embalming a corpse in the State Room Félix lets out a little scream of outrage.

Once he has heard the full story Félix says he isn’t surprised. He always knew there was a lot of skullduggery going on at the hotel but didn’t see it as his job to stop it. He goes on to say that he bumped into Jules himself that morning at a station in Paris (there are so many improbable coincidences it’s barely worth worrying about them). Jules was unfazed and declared he was off to Constantinople. Which turned out to be a lie because half an hour ago Félix spotted him at Charing Cross. The Baddie is back in town!

They fall to discussing how the baddie may be thinking of disposing of Prince Eugen and this leads to speculation about the death of Dimmock. Theodore thinks he was poisoned and puts forward his theory that it was done by poisoning his drink, his wine. This leads into a lengthy digression on the vast wine cellars lying beneath the hotel and prompts Félix to offer to give Theodore a tour. So they go and collect the keys of Mr Hubbard the wine cellar man and there are pages describing the labyrinth of cellars and the glorious wines that repose there.

En route Félix explains that prince Eugen’s favourite wine is the Romanee-Conti.

Eventually they come to the stone cellar where is stored the finest champagne. There is a faint light from a barred window and Theodore suddenly realises it has been broken into. next second he hears a sound coming from behind a wine rack and leaps upon a crouching figure and it turns out to be… his daughter, Nella!

She explains that she was in her room reading when she heard a funny noise. Looking vertically down she realised there was a sunken area by the side of the hotel and as she watched saw a shrouded figure climb down into it and then 15 minutes of sawing noise followed by the same man climbing back out of the area and walking down to the Embankment. She got dressed, went downstairs, round the side of the hotel, found a ladder down into the area, climbed down, crossed it to find a small skylight-type window with metal bars, gave it a tug and wasn’t surprised to find it came away in her hands, and wriggled through it to find herself in this wine cellar. Which is where Félix and her father have just found her.

They make a quick plan. It was almost certainly Jules and he’s almost certainly on his way back. So Theodore will leave Félix and Nella here, in the cellar, hidden outside the door to the champagne store while he, Theodore, will rush back through the cellars, up into the hotel, round the side, and catch Jules red-handed.

He leaves and hardly a minute has gone by when Félix and Nella hear the glass being removed, a body wriggling through the gap, standing, turning on the electric light and being revealed as Jules. They watch in silence as Jules finds the crate of Romanee-Conti – ‘Prince Eugen’s favourite wine,’ gasps Félix – undoes the seal, smears a black cream of some sort round the cork, then reseals it, puts it back in its crate, turns off the light and wriggles back through the window, replacing the skylight. So it was to be murder and it was to be via poisoned wine!!

Meanwhile Theodore had hurried as fast as he could but the wine cellars really were a labyrinth, extending wider than the base of the hotel, and once he’d managed to find his way out, he was waylaid by an importunate guest in the lobby; and then he was quizzed by a policeman who thought him suspicious and, when he saw him climbing down into the area, promptly arrested him.

It was only after he’d insisted on being taken back to the hotel to prove who he was that Theodore was able to return to the area and discovered that he’d just missed Jules who was fifty yards ahead of him. He followed at speed but Jules made it down to the Embankment and jumped over, into the river. Theodore was astonished at this apparent suicide attempt till he saw a steam funnel pulling away and realised Jules had jumped into a steam yacht which had soon pulled out into the river and was lost in the fog. Damn!

Next day Theodore informs Prince Aribert of what happened the night before. Aribert is due to dine with his nephew again this evening. Theodore proposes that he lets the wine be served in order to be served who among the servants are accomplices. This is just the author’s pretext to set up a tense scene in which dinner is served, and Eugen requests the Romanee-Conti as usual, and his manservant Hans prepares it, removing the seal, pulling the cork, wiping the rim of the bottle, pouring a glass and handing it to Eugen only for Aribert to blurt out that it is poisoned! Poisoned? Hans is scandalised and asks whether Aribert is calling him a poisoner and puts the glass to his lips to drink it himself, but Aribert leaps up and knocks the glass to the floor where it shatters. Well, at least that confirms Hans is not in on the conspiracy. End of Dramatic Scene!

Next morning Theodore ventures along to the Custom House where, for some ready money, he acquires the services of a Mr George Hazell, 30 and the acknowledged expert of all the ships in the Port of London to help him find the steam yacht Jules escaped on.

That night they set off in a black-painted wherry with two of Hazell’s assistants. Theodore finds life out on river strange and mysterious at night, all those spars and masts and funnels projecting up into the moonlight. The Port of London, which evokes such atmospheric writing in authors like Wilde, Doyle or Arthur Morrison. All of them trace back to the phenomenal descriptions of the Portside slums in Dickens, in Oliver Twist, Great Expectations or Our Mutual Friend:

Down towards the east and the Pool of London a forest of funnels and masts was dimly outlined against the sinister sky. Huge barges, each steered by a single man at the end of a pair of giant oars, lumbered and swirled down-stream at all angles. Occasionally a tug snorted busily past, flashing its red and green signals and dragging an unwieldy tail of barges in its wake. Then a Margate passenger steamer, its electric lights gleaming from every porthole, swerved round to anchor, with its load of two thousand fatigued excursionists. Over everything brooded an air of mystery — a spirit and feeling of strangeness, remoteness, and the inexplicable. As the broad flat little boat bobbed its way under the shadow of enormous hulks, beneath stretched hawsers, and past buoys covered with green slime, Racksole could scarcely believe that he was in the very heart of London—the most prosaic city in the world. He had a queer idea that almost anything might happen in this seeming waste of waters at this weird hour of ten o’clock. It appeared incredible to him that only a mile or two away people were sitting in theatres applauding farces, and that at Cannon Street Station, a few yards off, other people were calmly taking the train to various highly respectable suburbs whose names he was gradually learning. He had the uplifting sensation of being in another world which comes to us sometimes amid surroundings violently different from our usual surroundings. The most ordinary noises — of men calling, of a chain running through a slot, of a distant siren — translated themselves to his ears into terrible and haunting sounds, full of portentous significance. He looked over the side of the boat into the brown water, and asked himself what frightful secrets lay hidden in its depths… (p.185)

When Racksole remembers that the beat of the steam yacht had a funny offbeat sound, the three experts laugh and all tell him that’s ‘The Squirm’, a steamer with one propeller half broken off, which belongs to the crook Jack Everett. they saw it anchored earlier in the day off Cherry Pier, and here they find it, tucked in snugly behind a Norwegian ship.

Hazell goes aboard the Screw calling out that he’s the Customs and wants to search it but finds only a woman who tells him to get it over with and bugger off. He’s getting back aboard the wherry to report no show when they see a dinghy shoot out from the lee of the Norwegian. Jules was hiding. There follows an exciting midnight chase in and out the anchored ships and barges of the Pool of London. Long story short, Jules scrambles aboard a high barge and looks down on Theodore in the wherry, brandishing a dagger in his hand and teasing him to come on up.

It looks like a standoff until, with lovely comic timing, some random kid, some mudlark, outraged at this intruder on his barge, comes up out of nowhere and simply pushes Jules off. He lands in the river with a splosh and turns out he can’t swim so our guys have to haul him aboard, tie him up and row back to the landing steps in front of the Grand Babylon.

They escort wet Jules into the hotel and up to his former room, a small space under the eaves and leave him bound hand and foot and tied to the bed and guarded by a massive member of staff, ex-army, no-nonsense.

Next morning bright and early Theodore comes to interrogate Jules. Jules makes the sally that Theodore will never turn him in to the police as it would prompt too many embarrassing questions. Theodore says he wouldn’t bother, he’d just take Jules out to sea in the hotel steam yacht and dump him over the side.

Jules comes clean and it is the story as we thought. He had been running a tidy little crime operation at the hotel for years. he was approached via a middle man from eminent people in Bosnia who offered to pay Jules £50,000 (about £2 million in modern money) if he ensured Eugen missed the appointment with Levi. He had planned to arrange this in the hotel itself but Theodore unexpectedly buying it ruined his plans. Instead he decided to intercept Eugen in Ostend and hired the Juno woman with the red hat to lure him to some rendezvous where he was abducted and held in the mystery house. Where Theodore, Aribert and Nella rescued him.

Nonetheless it took Eugen weeks to recover and by the time he had the deadline from Levi had passed. But then his contacts in Bosnia got restless and decided they wanted Eugen put out of the way permanently and offered a cool £100,000, not caring about the details. And so Jules arranged the wine bottle poisoning which didn’t come off.

Theodore asks the name of the middle man which Jules tells him but it won’t do him any good, he recently heard the man is dead. And it’s at this point that Nella enters to tell Theodore that Eugen is unwell…

Cut back to the evening before. You remember how Theodore had encouraged Aribert to go ahead with dining with Eugen in order to watch who proffered the poisoned wine, and Aribert swiping the poison glass out of Hans’s hands at the last minute? Well, that was the same evening that Theodore went out on the river with Hazell and caught Jules.

What we didn’t know until this moment is that, in the poison wine scene, although the glass was dashed out of Hans’s hands, Eugen slumped in his chair anyway, and now we learn that the others smell laudanum on his breath. Eugen has poisoned himself!

They carry him to his room, fetch a doctor then a specialist who all wash their hands of him. Nella and Aribert hold hands and talk about what kind of future they’ll have. Suddenly Eugen calls and Aribert is relieved that he is rallying… this means he will be king and Nella and Aribert can be married.

However, Eugen has regained consciousness only to tell Aribert that he is doomed. He can feel it in his heart. He is dying. It’s then that a servant tells Nella finally gets someone to tell her where her father is. He’d been missing all night and then his whereabouts were unknown this morning (since he went to Jule’s room at first light). Now rumour spreads that he’s up in the old head waiter’s room so Nella leaps out of her chair and goes bounding up the stairs.

Which explains her bursting in on the interrogation of Jules. She is taken aback for a moment then begs her father to come with her.

And so the novel builds up to a clever comic climax. Nella realises her Dad is the only one who can 1) save Eugen’s life and 2) ensure her and Aribert’s happiness. She asks him how soon he could raise a million pounds. Well, it would take a bit of doing but then his darling daughter explains it’s the only thing she wants in her life, to be allowed to marry the man she loves.

Long story short: she succeeds, she persuades him. Later that morning Theodore arranges for the payment of Hazell and his assistants, then has breakfast with Félix and brings him up to speed with the latest goss. Then strolls along to the City and arranges access to £1 million.

The doctors return and despair of Eugen’s condition which is when Nella takes Aribert aside and tells him to tell Eugen that the loan is arranged, his debts will be paid off, he can marry Princess Anna. Eugen sits up in bed he is so amazed. Everyone makes him sit back down but the change is effected. From this point onwards he wants to live and gets better.

Aribert and Nella are celebrating their good news when Theodore sneaks in and beckons Aribert to go with him. He takes Aribert to his office and pulls back a sheet to reveal the corpse of Jules. Miraculously he had managed to escape from his bindings, wriggled through the small window, used a cornice to get up onto the hotel roof, scampered along it to a fire escape and was merrily climbing down it when a rung snapped and he plunged to his death. The baddie is dead. the plot has ended.

A concluding chapter ties up a few loose ends: Miss Spencer is never heard of again. Rocco is heard of some years later making a name for himself at a hotel in South America. After a few weeks a fully recovered Prince Eugen and his entourage leave to travel back to Posen and propose to Princess Anna.

Aribert comes to ask for the Nella’s hand in marriage. He announces he is renouncing all his royal titles and reverting to plain Count of Harzen. He has an annual income of £10,000. Theodore grants his permission and then, rather breath-takingly, bestows on the couple £50 million, half his fortune.

That night, after dinner, the friends Theodore and Félix take the air on the hotel terrace and Félix confesses that he’s rather bored. He misses running the hotel. Is there any chance he could have it back? Theodore says maybe. How much? The same as he paid for it. Félix pretends to say be outraged, saying he sold him a hotel with three outstanding members of staff, being Jules, Rocco and Miss Spencer and Theodore managed to lose all three of them! But, yes, alright, the same price as he received for it, and they shake.

And so was brought to a close the complex chain of events which had begun when Theodore Racksole ordered a steak and a bottle of Bass at the table d’hôte of the Grand Babylon Hôtel. (p.219)

Thoughts

Although she’s in many respects a male-conceived stereotype, still Nella Racksole is a strong independent woman, a notable figure to be starring so prominently in a late-Victorian thriller.

Miss Racksole,’ he said, ‘if you will permit me to say it, I have never in my life met a woman like you.’ (p.63)

I really liked the character of Jules the superior head waiter and his sniffy comments about guests to Miss Spencer in the first chapter. Shame they both had to turn out to be criminals. I’d have liked to read a lot more about the snooty waiter. In fact at the end we learn that Jules had undertaken various other crimes and scams while at the hotel, which could have set Bennett nicely up for a prequel, if he’d cared to…

Quotes

Very enjoyable popcorn prose from the turn of the nineteenth century. Murder mystery intrigue:

The town was silent and almost deserted. It had a false and sinister aspect. She remembered tales which she had heard of this glittering resort, which in the season holds more scoundrels than any place in Europe, save only Monte Carlo.

The thin veneer of civilisation

This is a perennial topic in these kinds of thrillers, the thought that ‘civilisation’ is only skin deep, a flimsy veneer on top of dark and sinister men and activities. The same sentiment is expressed in every one of John Buchan’s thrillers and is given vivid expression here several times:

Twenty-four hours ago she would have declared it impossible that such an experience as she had suffered could happen to anyone; she would have talked airily about civilization and the nineteenth century, and progress and the police. But her experience was teaching her that human nature remains always the same, and that beneath the thin crust of security on which we good citizens exist the dark and secret forces of crime continue to move, just as they did in the days when you couldn’t go from Cheapside to Chelsea without being set upon by thieves. Her experience was in a fair way to teach her this lesson better than she could have learnt it even in the bureaux of the detective police of Paris, London, and St Petersburg. (p.80)

And:

Could this be a West End hotel, Racksole’s own hotel, in the very heart of London, the best-policed city in the world? It seemed incredible, impossible; yet so it was. Once more he remembered what Felix Babylon had said to him and realized the truth of the saying anew. The proprietor of a vast and complicated establishment like the Grand Babylon could never know a tithe of the extraordinary and queer occurrences which happened daily under his very nose; the atmosphere of such a caravanserai must necessarily be an atmosphere of mystery and problems apparently inexplicable. (p.99)

Fear

It was a curious psychological effect, this terrorizing (for it amounted to that) of two courageous full-grown men by the mere apparition of a helpless creature in a cellar. Gradually they both recovered from it. The next moment they were out in the passage which led to the front door of the house. The front door stood open. They looked into the street, up and down, but there was not a soul in sight. The street, lighted by three gas-lamps only, seemed strangely sinister and mysterious.

The narrative portrays the emotion of fear in persuasive detail because it is, of course, an echo of the emotion the book itself is trying to generate in the reader’s bosom.

The eternal enemy

The best baddies never die but eerily survive every catastrophe. This is because they are psychological projections of our worst fears which, by definition, can never be killed.

Men like Jules are incapable of being defeated. It was characteristic of his luck that now, in the very hour when he had been caught red-handed in a serious crime against society, he should be effecting a leisurely escape — an escape which left no clue behind.


Credit

‘The Grand Hotel Babylon’ by Arnold Bennett was serialised in Golden Penny magazine in 1901, for which Bennett received £100. It was then published as a novel by London publisher Chatto and Windus in 1902. References are to the 1972 Penguin Classics paperback edition.

Related link

Related reviews

The Ballad of Reading Gaol by Oscar Wilde

Prisons

On 25 May 1895 Oscar Wilde was sentenced to two years hard labour for ‘gross indecency’. He was processed at Newgate Prison before being moved on to Pentonville Prison, where he began to experience the ‘hard labour’ he’d been sentenced to, namely many hours of walking a treadmill or separating the fibres in scraps of old navy ropes. A few months later he was moved to Wandsworth Prison where the regime was so harsh that in November he collapsed, banging his ear on the way down, which led to later infections and ailments. After spending two months in the infirmary, he was transferred to his final prison, Reading Gaol.

Freedom

Two years after his conviction, on 19 May 1897, Wilde was taken by train from Reading Gaol to Pentonville preparatory for his release. The next day he was actually set free and sailed the same evening for Dieppe, France. He never returned to England. He was to live on for three miserable, poverty-stricken years in Paris before dying of meningitis on 30 November 1900, aged 46.

A few months after his release, Wilde began writing ‘The Ballad of Reading Gaol’ while staying with his former lover and loyal friend, Robert Ross near Dieppe on the Normandy coast. It was assembled from aspects of his experience of imprisonment but came to focus on one particular character and event, the hanging of one Charles Thomas Wooldridge, a former trooper in the Royal Horse Guards.

Charles Thomas Wooldridge

On 7 July 1896 i.e. a year into Wilde’s imprisonment, Wooldridge was hanged at Reading Gaol. He had been convicted of cutting the throat of his wife, Laura Ellen, earlier that year at Clewer, near Windsor. He was 30 years old. Wooldridge’s case and punishment provide the focus of Wilde’s poem. In Wilde’s hands Wooldridge is transformed from a prisoner into a symbol round which descriptions of prison life, the misery and harshness of incarceration, and the awe and horror at the prospect of judicial murder all crystallise.

The ballad form

Wilde added and added to the poem until eventually it consisted of 109 stanzas. Wilde’s pre-incarceration poems had been written in the style of late-Victorian Romanticism, with lush metaphors and sophisticated literary allusions to Greek mythology etc. By stark contrast, the Ballad is, as the name suggests, written in the simpler ballad form, long associated with folk, peasant and working class culture, and stripped of fancy literary references.

One of the reasons for choosing this form is that Wilde intended it, along with its message of prison reform and moral injustice, to reach as wide an audience as possible. He wrote to a friend suggesting that it be published in Reynolds’ Magazine, ‘because it circulates widely among the criminal classes – to which I now belong. For once I will be read by my peers – a new experience for me.’

The simplest ballads usually consist of four-line stanzas. Probably the most famous ballad in the English language is The Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, published precisely 100 years before Wilde’s ballad, in 1798. The most famous stanza goes:

Water, water, every where,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, every where,
Nor any drop to drink.

In the technical language of poetry a ‘iamb’ is a metrical foot made up of one unstressed syllable followed by one stressed syllable (ti-tum). In the Ballad Wilde uses the traditional structure of iambic tetrameters (four metrical feet per line) alternating with iambic trimeters (three metrical feet per line) so the effect is:

ti-tum ti-tum ti-tum ti-tum (4 beats)
ti-tum ti-tum ti-tum (3 beats)

So it’s the identical rhythm to the stanza I just quoted from the Rime. Where Wilde is a little unusual is that the 109 stanzas of his Ballad have six lines rather than four.

Yet each man kills the thing he loves,
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!

The longer, 6-line form has at least two results. One is that each stanza has 50% longer to develop its thought or idea. This gives individual verses, and the poem as a whole, more weight (maybe).

The second consequence is that he could make the rhyme scheme more complicated. The rhyme scheme in the Coleridge is almost as simple as could be, ABAB i.e. where, shrink, where, drink.

Wilde’s rhyme scheme is that bit more complicated, at ABCBDB: first come three freestanding words – loves, heard, look; then a word rhyming with the end of line B (heard); then a freestanding word D (kiss), before another B word (sword). You can see how the D word doesn’t rhyme with anything else. The effect is to break up the seesaw monotony of ABAB with a wild card. It is regular enough to feel song-like but irregular enough not to be boring.

One last point: Wilde also mixes it up by quite regularly including internal rhymes within the same line, as in lines 1 and 5 here:

So with curious eyes and sick surmise
We watched him day by day,
And wondered if each one of us
Would end the self-same way,
For none can tell to what red Hell
His sightless soul may stray.

Sing-song isn’t quite the right word but this excess of rhymes, and especially the internal rhymes in one line, emphasise the ‘popular’ ballad vibe which in turn give the whole thing a kind of thumping obviousness; or maybe a kind of inevitability. Instead of the subtle floating of modernist verse it has a kind of thumping, marching quality, a doom-laden inevitability.

One last point: again, unlike the one-off lines and perceptions of more sophisticated poetry, the ballad revels in repetition. The multitude of rhymes are a sort of repetition on a small scale while certain words and phrases, descriptions (of the condemned man’s plight, of the grave) and indeed entire stanzas (namely the ‘Each man kills the thing he loves’ stanza), are repeated throughout the poem. This quality of wholesale repetition – repetition at the micro and the macro level – also contributes to the oppressive, doom-laden feeling.

Six sections

The ballad is arranged in six parts.

Part 1 (16 stanzas)

Part 1 paints the background: in the prison exercise yard the prisoners are walking in silent circles, looking up at the little patch of blue the prisoners call the sky, when the narrator notices a man with a cricket cap on his head who is looking up at the clouds with a particularly ‘wistful’ expression. One of Wilde’s neighbours whispers that the man is ‘going to swing’ i.e. be hanged. Why? For murdering his wife in her bed. This introduces the central premise of the poem, the rather sweeping generalisation that:

each man kills the thing he loves,
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!

Some kill their love when they are young,
And some when they are old;
Some strangle with the hands of Lust,
Some with the hands of Gold:
The kindest use a knife, because
The dead so soon grow cold.

And these generalisations move onto the idea that, although most men kill the thing they love, most are never caught or punished or condemned to hang, whereas this man, Wooldridge has been caught, convicted and sentence. Which allows the poem to move onto a vivid series of scenes describing what it’s like to be a man condemned to death, how:

  • he is watched by wardens day and night to make sure he doesn’t kill himself and deprive the system of its justice
  • on the fatal morning he wakes at dawn to see his cell filled by the chaplain, sheriff and governor
  • he hurries to put on his convict uniform while a doctor checks his pulse
  • he feels the hangman tie the leather nooses (three, apparently) round his throat
  • he walks past his own coffin
  • he listens to the Burial Office being read
  • he looks up into the miserable skylight overhead in his last moments

Part 2 (13 stanzas)

Back in the exercise yard the narrator comments on how the man he now knows is condemned to death, oddly, strikingly, doesn’t give way to despair but drinks the air with simple pleasure. The narrator describes the black fate of the tree whose trunk is turned into a gallows. Then reflects how his own life has crossed with the condemned man’s like two ships passing in a storm, how they are both outcasts.

Like two doomed ships that pass in storm
We had crossed each other’s way:
But we made no sign, we said no word,
We had no word to say;
For we did not meet in the holy night,
But in the shameful day.

Part 3 (37 stanzas)

The narrator (again) describes life for the condemned man, the behaviour of the governor, doctor and chaplain who ‘leaves a little tract’. And life for the prisoners with vivid details of the ‘hard labour’ Wilde was condemned to:

We tore the tarry rope to shreds
With blunt and bleeding nails;
We rubbed the doors, and scrubbed the floors,
And cleaned the shining rails:
And, rank by rank, we soaped the plank,
And clattered with the pails.

We sewed the sacks, we broke the stones,
We turned the dusty drill:
We banged the tins, and bawled the hymns,
And sweated on the mill…

But the description is background all the more to foreground the specific horror of Wooldridge’s fate. This description leads up to the prisoners returning from work past an open grave and knowing who it had been dug for.

And Wilde marvels that, while the condemned man slept like a baby, it was the others, his comrades, who were kept awake at night in terror at his fate. He claims the wardens were amazed to find, on their rounds, men praying (for the condemned man or for themselves) in the depths of the night. This seems doubtful a bit doubtful although we accept it as poetic licence and as part of the ballad form’s traditional spooky, supernatural vibe. It also happens to provide a handy example of how effective the poem is when it sticks close to actual description:

The warders with their shoes of felt
Crept by each padlocked door,
And peeped and saw, with eyes of awe,
Grey figures on the floor,
And wondered why men knelt to pray
Who never prayed before.

But just as quickly loses it, that closeness of observation I admire, when Wilde gives way to melodrama:

All through the night we knelt and prayed,
Mad mourners of a corse!
The troubled plumes of midnight were
The plumes upon a hearse:
And bitter wine upon a sponge
Was the savour of Remorse.

I don’t think the prisoners are actually ‘mad’, what does ‘the troubled plumes of midnight’ mean?, the hearse is conventional melodrama because, of course, there is no hearse for this dead man; the bitter wine on the sponge is of course a reference to Christ being offered the same during his crucifixion; and the capitalisation of Remorse takes us back to the heavy-handedness of medievalising allegory.

This histrionic tone continues into some stanzas which go way over the top. Wilde has the prison invaded by ‘crooked shapes of Terror’, by ‘phantoms’, a ‘ghostly rout’, who proceed to dance a grisly masque’ and even sing a phantom song whose lyrics are quoted. This has lifted off from the real to become a visionary fantasia which reminded me not only of the most hallucinatory parts of Coleridge’s poem but also the visionary processions you find in Shelley’s poetry. The ghostly rout’s song goes:

Oho!‘ they cried, ‘the world is wide,
But fettered limbs go lame!
And once, or twice, to throw the dice
Is a gentlemanly game,
But he does not win who plays with Sin
In the Secret House of Shame.

(Does this refer to Wilde himself? We know that between his trials his boyfriend Lord Alfred Douglas persuaded him to go abroad to, of all places, Monte Carlo, where he lost large sums gambling (a vice which never appealed to Wilde). Is he comparing the way Douglas rolled the dice but escaped conviction partly because he was a gentleman, whereas he, Wilde, was convicted because he indulged a bigger game, ‘playing with Sin’? Does ‘the Secret House of Shame’ refer to the entire lifestyle of gay orgies and rent boys which he indulged in and created in the years leading up to his arrest?)

The visionary dance scene ends as a more realistic dawn arrives. The prisoners are woken at 6am to clean their cells and by 7 are standing to. The narrator describes the horrible hopelessness the men felt at the absolute inflexibility of human justice which, for once, justifies the capital letter:

For Man’s grim Justice goes its way,
And will not swerve aside:
It slays the weak, it slays the strong,
It has a deadly stride…

And at 8am prompt a great wail goes up from the cells because every one of the prisoners knew that was the hour when Wooldridge was hanged. Again I’d contrast overdoing it (the madman on a drum):

We had no other thing to do,
Save to wait for the sign to come:
So, like things of stone in a valley lone,
Quiet we sat and dumb:
But each man’s heart beat thick and quick,
Like a madman on a drum!

With description which is more realistic and therefore more impactful:

With sudden shock the prison-clock
Smote on the shivering air,
And from all the gaol rose up a wail
Of impotent despair…

OK, I don’t like the archaic phraseology (‘smote’) or the schoolboy angst (‘despair’) but I can well imagine a kind of collective groan did go up all round the prison at the hour of Wooldridge’s execution, and that is a haunting image.

Part 4 (23 stanzas)

No chapel service is held on the day they hang a man; the chaplain feels too sick. The prisoners were finally released from their cells at noon to take exercise in the yard. And so the men traipse round and round in the usual silent circles in their shabby prison outfits with the ‘crooked arrows’ on them. The wardens mind them in the usual way but the prisoners note the traces of lime on their boots and the newly filled-in grave by the prison walls. And Wilde is haunted by the image of the freshly dead man’s corpse wrapped in a shroud of quicklime designed to eat into his body like acid.

And all the while the burning lime
Eats flesh and bone away,
It eats the brittle bone by night,
And the soft flesh by day…

The authorities don’t sow anything on a hanged man’s plot of earth for fear the product will be tainted, but Wilde suggests the opposite: that God’s earth is kindlier than men know, that beautiful roses would blossom out of the curse man’s soil.

Wilde bitterly criticises the shabby underhand way Wooldridge was killed, a passage all the more effective for the relatively restrained diction, no capitalised allegories, no Despair etc, just the facts:

They hanged him as a beast is hanged:
They did not even toll
A requiem that might have brought
Rest to his startled soul,
But hurriedly they took him out,
And hid him in a hole.

They stripped him of his canvas clothes,
And gave him to the flies:
They mocked the swollen purple throat,
And the stark and staring eyes:

The chaplain didn’t kneel to pray at the grave and yet Wilde insists it was precisely for sinners that Christ died, that God’s Son died for all men.

Part 5 (17 stanzas)

Only now does Wilde get round to telling us what it is like to be in prison. Having told us about this one condemned man, part 5 now widens the perspective out to consider prison and prisoners in the wider perspective of society and contains Wilde’s bitter criticism of the prison system: all it does is breed more vice and crime.

The vilest deeds like poison weeds,
Bloom well in prison-air;
It is only what is good in Man
That wastes and withers there…

Although he spoils this stanza, as so much else, with what I regard as heavy-handed use of capitalised allegorical abstract nouns:

Pale Anguish keeps the heavy gate,
And the Warder is Despair.

‘Despair’ is a word I associate with immature poems by fifth formers in the school magazine. It’s such a lazy word, so easy to throw around in any situation, it lacks specificity and precision. It’s also so over-used simply because it is such a handy rhyme word – air, there, care, loads of rhyme words can set it up, it’s too easy, too available. In many ways Wilde’s diction, here and in all his poems, is an object lesson in how not to write a poem.

It was only around now that I realised there’s a recurring pattern in Wilde’s stanzas. Remember my comments on the 6-line stanza, how the extra 2 lines allow the thought to be extended? Well, I realised there’s a tendency for the first four lines to be good, sticking close to description of actual sights or events, but for Wilde to repeatedly spoil the effect by using those final two lines for over-the-top, allegorising histrionics. So:

At six o’clock we cleaned our cells,
At seven all was still,
But the sough and swing of a mighty wing
The prison seemed to fill,
For the Lord of Death with icy breath
Had entered in to kill.

Or:

The brackish water that we drink
Creeps with a loathsome slime,
And the bitter bread they weigh in scales
Is full of chalk and lime,
And Sleep will not lie down, but walks
Wild-eyed, and cries to Time.

To paraphrase George Orwell in Animal Farm, four lines good, six lines bad.

And yet, despite his style, the horror of prison life comes over well enough, the enforced silence and the loneliness. The first of these stanzas is a bit rank but the second one really conveys it:

With midnight always in one’s heart,
And twilight in one’s cell,
We turn the crank, or tear the rope,
Each in his separate Hell,
And the silence is more awful far
Than the sound of a brazen bell.

And never a human voice comes near
To speak a gentle word:
And the eye that watches through the door
Is pitiless and hard:
And by all forgot, we rot and rot,
With soul and body marred.

But precise and upsetting, or over-the-top and Gothic, all these descriptions are designed to lead the poem up to its heart which is a vision of Christian redemption. For it is the very intensity of their suffering which, in Wilde’s view, leads men’s hearts to break but not into hopeless despair – instead, in the optimistic climax of the poem, this breaking allows Christ’s love to enter in and redeem them. I’ll quote the three relevant stanzas in full to give a sense of the flow of the argument:

And thus we rust Life’s iron chain
Degraded and alone:
And some men curse, and some men weep,
And some men make no moan:
But God’s eternal Laws are kind
And break the heart of stone.

And every human heart that breaks,
In prison-cell or yard,
Is as that broken box that gave
Its treasure to the Lord,
And filled the unclean leper’s house
With the scent of costliest nard.

Ah! happy they whose hearts can break
And peace of pardon win!
How else may man make straight his plan
And cleanse his soul from Sin?
How else but through a broken heart
May Lord Christ enter in?

This immediately reminds you of the passages in De Profundis where Wilde repeats that the only way to stay sane in prison was through acceptance – accepting his fate, accepting his destiny, accepting that it couldn’t have happened any other way, accepting every step that led to the miserable depths of wretchedness, and then accepting his condition in its entirety. Repining and objecting – if only I’d done this and if only I hadn’t done that – can only drive you mad with regret. The wretchedness of the conditions cause many a man’s heart to break but this is good. Only by breaking hardened hearts can the sweetness of God’s forgiveness be experienced.

Wilde is giving a straightforwardly, unironically Christian message of salvation. Jesus Christ moved among sinners, moneylenders and prostitutes, not among the upstanding rule-abiding members of the community, precisely because it is the sinners who need saving (and who, incidentally, in their own way, often embodied the true Christian virtues of charity and forgiveness, as demonstrated in his fairy stories). And so it’s in this spirit of Christian redemption that the poem rises to its pious climax:

Ah! happy they whose hearts can break
And peace of pardon win!
How else may man make straight his plan
And cleanse his soul from Sin?
How else but through a broken heart
May Lord Christ enter in?

And he of the swollen purple throat,
And the stark and staring eyes,
Waits for the holy hands that took
The Thief to Paradise;
And a broken and a contrite heart
The Lord will not despise.

It’s a moving climax within the rhythm of this very rhythmic poem but also because of what we know about Wilde’s biography: it is moving that the lifelong cynic, dandy and provocateur has been so broken down, so stripped of poses and smart one-liners, that his Christian conversion appears utterly genuine.

Part 6 (3 stanzas)

Having reached the climax of this Christian vision the poem tastefully, tactfully, ends with three short stanzas which recap and summarise the entire work with the laconic simplicity of the true ballad:

In Reading gaol by Reading town
There is a pit of shame,
And in it lies a wretched man
Eaten by teeth of flame,
In a burning winding-sheet he lies,
And his grave has got no name.

To be honest, Wilde could have ended there and done his job. I think he weakens the effect by going on and making the final stanza a repetition of the idea which dominated the opening, the notion that ‘each man kills the thing he loves’, repeating word for word the related verse in Part 1.

And all men kill the thing they love,
By all let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!

It has a purely rhetorical, incantatory effectiveness but I don’t like it as an ending because I just don’t believe it.

Sales

The finished poem was published by Leonard Smithers on 13 February 1898 with the author’s name given as C.3.3. This number was how Wilde was referred to in prison, standing for cell block C, landing 3, cell 3. The aim was to avoid having Wilde’s name – by then notorious – appear on the poem’s front cover.

The poem was a surprising success, with Smithers reprinting it in February, a signed edition and a fourth mass edition in March, a fifth edition later the same month and a sixth edition in May. The seventh edition, in June 1899, finally revealed the author’s identity, putting the name Oscar Wilde in square brackets below the C.3.3.

The Ballad brought Wilde a small income for the rest of his life but it wasn’t enough to live on. The Ballad was the last thing he wrote.

Thoughts

You can see the effort that’s gone into the poem. You can appreciate the careful structuring of the material which delays a description of prison life till part 5 so that all the horror and negativity of prison life doesn’t sit hopeless and heavy but leads directly into the message of Christian redemption at what I take to be the climax of the poem. It is well and cleverly done. But still, in my view, it is marred by all kinds of faults.

Melodrama

The leading one is the sometimes ridiculous melodrama, the Victorian Gothic exaggeration. Coleridge’s poem is intended to be a high Gothic melodrama and works partly because it brings a sort of realistic description to an over-wrought subject. Wilde’s poem is not as good because it brings a consistent tone of overwrought melodrama to a subject which, arguably, would have been better treated with understatement. Thus in the opening stanzas one of the other prisoners tells him Wooldridge is going to swing and rather than accept the news as one more horrible thing about prison life, Wilde goes bananas:

Dear Christ! the very prison walls
Suddenly seemed to reel,
And the sky above my head became
Like a casque of scorching steel…

Similarly, describing Wooldridge’s manner he writes:

He did not wring his hands, as do
Those witless men who dare
To try to rear the changeling Hope
In the cave of black Despair…

This kind of melodrama is too simplistic; it’s a child’s version of psychology. The Cave of Despair reminds me of the widespread allegorisation in the Elizabethan poet Edmund Spenser’s huge allegorical epic,  the Faerie Queene.

I take the point that the ballad, as a form, is often melodramatic and involves elements of the supernatural (loads of gruesome murders and midnight ghosts). But Wilde’s penchant for capitalised abstract nouns (Justie, Despair) felt to me like a giving-in to late-Romantic clichés and that these clichés do what all clichés do, which is close off the possibility of genuine observation, of subtle psychology and insight, in favour of cheap special effects.

Late-Romantic diction

Secondly, Wilde’s style brings together all the faults of late-Romanticism, its archaic vocabulary and lush tone, without a hint of the new, stripped-down modernism which was going to appear in English poetry in just ten years’ time. It is the last gasp of a dying tradition. So (in my opinion) the first four lines of this stanza are good(ish):

I never saw a man who looked
With such a wistful eye
Upon that little tent of blue
Which prisoners call the sky…

But are marred by the ‘poeticism’ of silver in the final couplet:

…And at every drifting cloud that went
With sails of silver by.

Wilde is more successful when he avoids big words like Despair and poeticisms about silver and ivory, and instead describes the observable facts, as he does in this grim stanza about what a hanging actually looks like:

It is sweet to dance to violins
When Love and Life are fair:
To dance to flutes, to dance to lutes
Is delicate and rare:
But it is not sweet with nimble feet
To dance upon the air!

OK the exclamation mark is childish but the image of the feet of the hanged man ‘dancing’ in a spastic frenzy for a few last seconds is vivid, realistic and horrible.

The central premise

I just couldn’t relate to the central theme or premise, the phrase Wilde repeats again and again and chooses to end the entire poem with – the notion that ‘each man kills the thing he loves’.

Yet each man kills the thing he loves,
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!

I think the emotional impact he intended depends on the reader buying into this sentiment but I didn’t really understand it – I don’t think it makes sense. Most men very much do not kill the thing they love. Surely most men love the thing they love, don’t they? The following simply isn’t true:

Some kill their love when they are young,
And some when they are old;
Some strangle with the hands of Lust,
Some with the hands of Gold:
The kindest use a knife, because
The dead so soon grow cold.

Wilde 1) tries to give the phrase the ominous weight of impending Greek tragedy, to make it some central plank of human nature, 2) then places it as the central refrain of the whole poem, 3) assigning it the final concluding position in the entire work.

And yet, reading it in the summer daylight, it seemed non-sense, the opposite of the truth; it evaporated in my hands and so, insofar as the poem relies on it, the Ballad, as an overall argument or proposition, for me, fails.

Christian redemption

What did work for me (this time round) was the sequence about the human heart breaking in order to allow Christ’s love in to save. On this particular morning, on this particular reading, I found this very moving.

The power of details

But if I don’t buy into the ‘all men kill’ premise, many of the incidental details do stick and haunt the imagination: the little patch of blue overhead, the cricket cap Wooldridge wears, the wailing that goes up from all the inmates at the hour of the hanging, and the corpse’s swollen purple throat. Despite all its flaws of diction and logic, ‘The Ballad of Reading Gaol’ remains a powerful work and indictment.

Femicide

It’s possible to read the entire poem, along with modern introductions to it, references in the letters, articles about it, and never once be reminded of the central fact that Wooldridge isn’t the innocent victim of a barbaric system, but that Wooldridge murdered his wife.

Do you remember the name of his wife (which I mentioned at the start)? No, most people don’t. She was Laura Ellen. Their fractious relationship led him to beat her up and Army rules led to them living apart. Suspecting her of having an affair he travelled to her lodgings in Clewer, they had an argument indoors which spilled out into the street where he cut her throat with a cut-throat razor and she bled to death.

You don’t have to be a feminist to find the way that Wilde lionises Wooldridge and makes him the central figure in his longest and most famous poem somewhat distasteful. It’s not hard to see the entire production as another example of the assault and abuse of a woman, and then her brutal murder, being elided and glossed over so that men can feel sorry for themselves.

The real victim here is Laura. Wooldridge, like Wilde, got his just deserts under the existing law of the time. Both of them would be imprisoned now, in 2024 (Wilde for procuring sex with under-age boys). Just like Wilde, Wooldridge was totally guilty of the offences he was charged with. But in Wilde’s concern for moral or poetic or spiritual exoneration, the real victim of the story is elided, occluded, forgotten, turned into the vague pretext for the refrain ‘Each man kills the thing he loves’.

You don’t have to be a feminist to find this a typical example of a male writer writing from a male perspective for male readers, distorting the truth, inverting the system of values (it was the woman who was the victim, not Wooldridge), making the wife-beating murderer into the central symbolic figure of the long poem, and over-writing, occluding, burying the real victim.

There’s a handy Wikipedia article about Wooldridge, which gives a lot more background to his case (and corrects Wilde’s erroneous belief that Wooldridge murdered Laura in their bed). But as if to prove the point, there’s no Wikipedia article for Laura. She only ‘exists’ in the discourse in her relation to the man who abused and murdered her. You don’t have to be a feminist to think this is typical.


Related links

Related reviews