The Village in the Jungle by Leonard Woolf (1913)

The rule of the jungle is first fear, and then hunger and thirst. There is fear everywhere: in the silence and in the shrill calls and the wild cries, in the stir of the leaves and the grating of branches, in the gloom, in the startled, slinking, peering beasts. And behind the fear is always the hunger and the thirst, and behind the hunger and the thirst fear again.
(The Village in the Jungle, page 11)

It was a strange world, a world of bare and brutal facts, of superstition, of grotesque imagination; a world of trees and the perpetual twilight of their shade; a world of hunger and fear and devils, where a man was helpless before the unseen and unintelligible powers surrounding him.
(page 21)

They say the man first finds heaven in a woman, later in a field, and last in the temple. (p.101)

Where there is food, there is happiness.

‘The Village in the Jungle’ is a really brilliant feat of imaginative writing. I expected it to be like Kipling’s Jungle Book for adults but quickly realised it’s far more serious and intense than that. It is an unflinching and brutal depiction of the harshness and primitiveness of Singhalese peasant life. It reminded me of Chinua Achebe’s intense novels about tribal life in West Africa, Things Fall Apart and No Longer At Ease.

This is because it’s a completely unpatronising, utterly believable description of the very poorest of the poor, living a pre-industrial illiterate life in a small clearing in the primeval jungle, barely subsisting under the harshest conditions imaginable. Unlike sentimental western notions of The Noble Savage, their lives are characterised by fear, hunger, anger and violence. (Key words which recur on almost every page are evil, devil and anger.)

The novel is so fully imagined, so complete and deep and convincing, that you feel like you are there, and I got to know these strange, remote, utterly alien people far better than many of the English characters in other novels I’ve read. But Achebe started writing about 1960 whereas this novel dates all the way back to 1913, half a century earlier. The way it takes such a blunt unflinching view of ‘native’ life was pioneering in its day.

Leonard Woolf in Ceylon

Leonard Woolf (1880 to 1969) had taken the civil service exams straight after leaving Cambridge, in 1903, passed with not particularly flying colours, and was offered a post in the Diplomatic Service. His family not being affluent enough to subsidise any other career (lawyer, academic), he accepted and in October 1904 was posted to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Here he became a cadet in the Ceylon Civil Service, serving first in Jaffna and later in Kandy.

Woolf served in Ceylon for seven long, intense years, gaining promotion to become an assistant government agent in the Southern Province, where he administered the District of Hambantota, an area of 2,600 square kilometres with a population of 100,000 people.

Throughout his time in Sri Lanka Woolf kept a detailed daily diary which he drew on for the detail of this novel, for the stories which make up his 1921 collection ‘Stories of the East’, and in the relevant volume of his multi-volume autobiography, titled ‘Growing’, published half a century later in 1961.

In May 1911 Woolf returned to England for a year’s well-deserved leave. He quickly realised he didn’t want to go back and in 1912 resigned his post. Part of the reason was that he had proposed to his long-term friend Virginia Stephen and she had accepted him. They married on 10 August 1912, both quite old, Virginia being 30 and Leonard 31. Over the next year he continued work on this novel which he had begun in Sri Lanka and it was published in October 1913. The book is dedicated to his new wife. It would be two years before she published her first novel (‘The Voyage Out’, in 1915).

During his seven years in Sri Lanka, Woolf learned the language and travelled intensively in the regions he administered. As a magistrate he was daily called on to adjudicate disputes, often between the poorest of the poor, between illiterate villagers in remote areas. And it’s in just such a remote village, really a straggling settlement of ten meagre houses, among utterly poverty-stricken illiterate villagers, that this extraordinary novel is set.

The village in the jungle

The village is called Beddegama, meaning ‘the village in the jungle’, and Woolf immediately throws us into the harsh environment with five dense pages powerfully conveying the relentlessly dog-eat-dog nature of the all-enfolding jungle.

All jungles are evil, but no jungle is more evil than that which lay about the village of Beddagama.

Only barely do the villagers manage to scrape a living by every year cutting and burning clearings called chenas in which to plant grain and vegetables. Everything depends on the rain which only falls for a few months a year, allowing the villagers to grow just enough crops to live on for the remaining ten months. Very rarely one or other of them makes the thirty mile trek to the small town of Kamburupitiya, there to borrow more seed, buy curry stuff or clothes, at ruinous rates of interest.

But for most of the villagers the horizon of their lives is the jungle which is only with difficulty kept outside the perimeter of the village, and into which they only penetrate a mile at most, to find water.

Silindu

The central character is the bad-tempered loner Silindu. He keeps himself to himself, is slack and lazy when it comes to raising crops, prefers to go hunting in the jungle with a long muzzle-loading gas-pipe gun, lying for hours on end in the foliage near waterholes hoping to shoot deer or sambur. His aloofness leads the other villagers to call him tikak pissu meaning ‘slightly mad’. By his laziness and lack of respect he also alienates the village headman, Babehami. (Babehami is known as Punchi Arachchi meaning ‘the little Arachchi, where Arachchi means the lowest rank of headman, headman over a village.)

Slindu marries and has twin daughter

Silindu has a wife, Dingihami. He gets her pregnant and she bears twin girls, Punchi Menika and Hinnihami. Silindu is furious that his wife has borne him daughters and rushes into the hut (all the ‘houses’ are made of mud), yells at her and beats her round the head and breasts. Two days later Dingihami dies. No-one seems to blame him, no steps to punishment are taken, Instead he has his sister, Karlinahami, who lived in a house at the other end of the village and whose husband had died of fever two months before, move in to become the twins’ step-mother. They grow up with her as the only mother they’ve ever known.

The twins grow up

The years pass. Silindi ignores his daughters until they’re three and one of them comes poking around at which he sets the girl on her feet and tells her a long story of the jungle. From that moment onwards he tells them stories and legends about the jungle and its creatures. He takes them out hunting with them and they acquire more knowledge of jungle fare, more confidence in the dark undergrowth, than the other villagers, especially the girls.

Babun Appu marries daughter 1, Punchi Menika

Over ten years later, when Punchi Menika is an adolescent of 15, she comes to the notice of a young man of the village Babun Appu. He is 21 years old and has only recently, after the death of his father, moved in with his sister Nanchohami who is married to the village headman, Babehami.
and suddenly notices her budding breasts and soft skin. Babu:

was tall for a Sinhalese, broad-shouldered, and big-boned. His skin was a dark chocolate-brown, his face oval, his nose small, his lips full and sensual. His expression was curiously virile and simple; but his brown eyes, which were large and oval-shaped, swept it at moments with something soft, languorous, and feminine.

After encountering her in the jungle and, from what we can make out, forcibly having sex with her, this still isn’t enough so he tells his parents he wants to marry Punchi Menika. They tell him he’s mad because Silindu is a famous eccentric and poor. He should trek to the nearest village and find a girl with a good dowry. But Babun insists and goes to see her father, Silindu. Silndu fatalistically regards this as just the latest calamity in his life and laments that he will lose his daughter. But Punchi Menika hears everything, comes out the hut, throws herself at his feet and says she needn’t move out. Instead Babun can build his own hut within Silindu’s compound, so she’ll be his wife, but still be there for her father.

So Silindu acquiesces, Babun builds his own hut in the compound and lives there with Punchi Menika. Babun is a simple honest guy and his living there slowly dispels the bad odour surrounding Silindu. People visit and the whole family becomes more accepted into the little village community.

Punchirala fancies daughter 2, Hinnihami

Hinnihami resents her sister going over to a strange man like this but life is life. So, in her turn, she becomes the target of various proposals, chief among them from 38-year-old Punchirala, with a face ravaged by a bear, but a reputation as a witch doctor or vederala.

When Punchirala comes to ask Silindu for Hinnihami’s hand, Silindu reluctantly refuses, knowing his daughter is a wildcat who will never accept the scarred vederala. Very angry, Punchirala puts a curse on Silindu who immediately starts to sicken. When he next goes into the jungle he has a panic attack, gets lost, injures himself.

Back in his compound he sickens and weakens. When his sister, Karlinahami, begs Punchirala to stop his spell, Punchirala disclaims all knowledge and claims it is the work of some devil. There is only one cure, which is to go on a pilgrimage to the Buddhist shrine at Beragala, five days’ trek through the jungle to the East.

Pilgrimage to Beragala

And so the family group of sick Silindu, Karlinahami, Hinnihami and Babun set off on the hard journey to Beragala, a journey described in vivid detail. After a few days their path joins a wider track, and they encounter larger and larger groups of pilgrims all trekking the same way, including an old man who shares his food with them.

In Beragala

Beragala is something beyond most of their experience, a wide street lined with shops and proper houses, with temples at either end and huge crowds of pilgrims, overwhelming for people used to seeing no more than 30 fellow villagers from one year’s end to another.

But to their surprise they discover the vederala Punchirala has travelled to Beragala too, claiming to have come for the festival. In reality he has come as part of his scheme to win Hinnihami as wife. He now tells the surprised pilgrim that there is only one man who can save Silindu from the devil which is possessing him and making him ill, a sanyasi, a holy man, a Hindu seer.

So they go to see this holy man, who has an immense length of hair and is dressed in a filthy dirty gown. There’s a problem that he doesn’t speak Singhalese so they require an interpreter. There’s another problem which is that the holy man requires payment and they have little or no money. They have to cadge a rupee off Punchirala, who makes them promise to give him food in the dry season.

Long story short: the holy man chants spells and announces that the cause of Silindu’s sickness is that the family refused to marry Hinnihami to Punchirala. (Did Punchirala pay him to say so? It’s not clear.) Either the man will have to be given or the girl, meaning either Silindu will die of Hinnihami will have to be given to Punchirala (p.75).

So, very reluctantly, having finished their pilgrimage, the little team pack and leave and on their first day back in the jungle they encounter Punchirala at an agreed rendezvous, hand Hinnihami over to him. Once this disagreeable duty is performed, they simply turn and continue their 4-day trek through the jungle. And with every day Silindu recovers his health and is more or less back to normal by the time they reach the village.

Punchirala’s life with Hinnihama

What happens next, over the coming weeks and months, is that Punchirala discovers that Hinnihami is, as Silindu warned him, a wildcat who obeys nobody. She allows herself to be ‘taken’ but with utter frigidity, and spends her days mocking him, calling him devil and dog. Quite quickly he realises she is not going to be his cook and comforter (p.81). After one outburst from Hinnihami Punchirala lets her return to live in her father’s compound.

Months pass. That year there are abundant rains. Not for 40 years had it rained so abundantly and the harvest is bounteous. Punchi Menaka has had a baby who is now 18 months old. Now Hinnihami has a child (Punchirala’s child), a girl she names Punchi Nona. On the day she is born Silindu returns from the jungle carrying a baby fawn. He had shot and killed its mother for meat but couldn’t bring himself to harm the now helpless fawn. He hands it to Hinnihami as she is suckling her baby and the fawn suckles from the other breast. This feels like a departure from realism into magical realism or the realm of fable.

Thus Hinnihami’s little girl and the fawn grow up side by side, nurtured and cared for by Hinnihami. She calls the fawn Punchi Appu and cares for it as much or maybe more than her own daughter. Inevitably, the other villagers think this is strange and unnatural, although what you’d expect from the mad father, Silindu.

Disaster

The year of plenty is followed by a year of disastrous drought. The rains fail during the planting season but when they do come, bring disease. We learn that the village had a population of 41 but that no fewer than 16 villagers die of dysentery and fever. When the novel began the village had ten ‘houses’ i.e. mud huts within fenced compounds. Two had been abandoned earlier (one when Babun moved into Silindu’s compound). Now two entire families are wiped out, their compounds are abandoned, so the village is reduced to six ‘houses’.

Death of the granddaughters

Both Silindu’s grand-daughters die in the sickness. In fact it hits him harder as he’d grown to love the toddlers, than it affects the mothers.

The death of the child is what every mother must continually expect. They had seen it too long in the village to be surprised at their own suffering : the birth of children every year and then the coming of the fever to carry them off. Their grief was lightened by the feeling of resignation to the inevitable. (p.85)

Fate

A pause to say that all the villagers believe in a fate or destiny which is harsh and punitive. They have a saying about evil which comes from the jungle and repeat it whenever anything bad happens.

‘Always evil is coming into this house from the jungle…’

Silindu is particularly pessimistic. When his wife gives birth to girls, when Babun takes Punchi Menika from him, when Punchirala puts the curse on him, at more or less every event in his life Silindu bewails his harsh fate.

In addition, he doesn’t realise that the village headman, Babehami, has got it in for him, and carries out a long, underhand vendetta. Babehami never liked him but is offended when Silindu beats his wife for bearing daughters. Slyly Babehami works against him, for example refusing to loan Silindu rice to sow in the fallow season, claiming he doesn’t have enough for himself; or in the matter of Silindu’s gas-gun which Babehami reports to the authorities away in the nearest town, because Silindu needs a license for his gun but doesn’t have the money to pay for one so uses it illegally.

This vendetta of Babehami’s against Silindu adds to Silindu’s sense of an overwhelming black destiny bearing him down.

Murder of Hinnihami

Punchirala feeds the rumours about Hinnihami and her fawn. He says it is a devil and she is a devil woman which is why he kicked her out of his compound. The rumours become toxic when the headman’s little son dies suddenly, for no apparent reason, and words gets around that the boy was carrying leaves in the jungle when he encountered the fawn which bent forward to nibble them but the boy snatched them away. Rumour says the fawn and the woman then put a curse on the boy.

After much muttering and conferring in Babehami’s hut, one day Hinnihami and her fawn are ambushed on a jungle path. A mob of Babehami’s kin stone then beat the fawn, deliberately breaking its legs, then beating and stoning it more. When Hinnihami tries to intervene she is beaten, her clothes town off her to reveal her breasts, and she is dragged over to the dying fawn where they are both, eventually, abandoned.

She lies half conscious by the fawn as it slowly dies, then lies out night in the jungle chill. Next morning Silindu finds her half-delirious, and takes her back to his compound where, unwilling to live on, she dies.

Arrival of Fernando

Everyone is surprised when the headman, Babehami, arranges for an outsider known as Fernando, from the town of Kamburupitiya, to come and live on a new house built on land adjoining his compound. This man runs a boutique in the town but has also loaned money to all the villages. After the fallow year he risks losing all his loans. Instead he’s agreed a plan with Babehami, whereby the latter will assign larger than usual chenas to each villager, of four acres, but on condition they all assign to Fernando one fifth of their crops. Fernando will supervise the villagers’ work on their chenas and guarantee the return of his loans, with interest. He is accompanied by a boy servant of 8, and is regarded by all the villagers as a social superior, given the honorary title of Mahatmaya.

Fernando fancies Punchi Menika

He hasn’t been there long before sex rears its head again. Silindu’s daughter, Babun’s wife, Punchi Menika, has a ‘face and form’ more attractive than the other squalid village women, and Fernando decides to make her his. Slight problem of her husband, Babun, standing in the way. So Fernando hatches a plan. He decides to schmooze Punchi Menika’s husband, Babun, by offering him the role of gambaraya to oversee all the chenas.

Then he enacts part two of his plot: this is to approach Punchi Menika and blackmail her into having sex with him by threatening to not only take away the role of gambaraya from Babun, but to call in his debts and ruin him. Even under these direct threats, Punchi Menika refuses to give in.

Babehami and Fernando conspire

They take three steps. 1) First the headman invites Babun to his compound. This never normally happens so Babun is surprised. They amaze him by telling him that Punchi Menika came to Fernando and asked to leave her husband and become his woman. Therefore, Babehami very reasonably suggests that they let Punchi have her wish, the marriage ends, and Babun comes back to live at his (Babehami’s) compound. Babun refuses to believe it but is so simple and gullible that he is tempted, until Fernando gives the game away by bursting out laughing at the foolish look on his face. He goes home and Punchi of course confirms that it’s a lie, that it is Fernando who tried to lure her away.

2) Next Babehami and Fernando unfold another plan: they appoint an outsider over the chena which Silindu and Babun have spent several weeks clearing. When they go to see Babehami the latter tells them permits or licenses to cultivate chenas can only be given to ‘fit’ persons and neither of them is fit. This is obvious intimidation. Silindu and Babun confer and decide Babun must make the three days journey to the nearest town to present their case to the Assistant Government Agent. He hastens there but discovers the AGA is absent on his rounds and no-one can tell him when he’ll return.

Walking through the town he passes the shop of the Moorman (Muslim?) Cassim who calls him in. When Babun explains his trouble Cassim immediately sees what fernando is doing and laughs at the lengths he’s going to just to bed a village woman. For fun Cassim offers to help him and writes a petition to the government agent, which is signed and sent. Cassim tells Buban to come back to town in ten days’ time.

3) Meanwhile Babehami and Fernando cook up another plan. They put word about that Babehami’s house has been broken into and burgled. They call in the Korala, a fat , consequential, bullying man. He goes into Silindu’s compound and emerges with a bundle containing two cloths, a pair of gold ear-rings, and some other pieces of gold jewellery. They claim Babun and Silindu stole this. Then they get their goons to find in the undergrowth nearby a large box which everyone recognises as the headman’s. They have been framed for a robbery.

All this is bad but has one ‘good’ consequence which is that Silindu finally realises that Babehami has had it in for him all along. In a flash he realises the whole sequence of vengeful decisions Babehami has made against him, for years, in fact for decades. He realises the headman has been for years his implacable enemy, behind much of his long string of bad luck.

The trial

In a pretty low key way, they are ‘arrested’ i.e. the headman orders Silindu and Babun to spend the night on his verandah, then the next day they are told to accompany Babehami, Fernando and the Korala to the nearby town.

Here they stand trial in a court run and administered by the colonial authority (Britain) with a white judge.

At this point you begin to understand that this is where Woolf’s own personal experience comes in. He himself was a regional administrator and judge and oversaw hundreds of cases which consisted of petty arguments from little villages between illiterate peasants. He must have seen hundreds of cases which were just the tip of slow-burning vendettas and village feuds, just like the one this novel records.

The trial is described in excruciating detail and takes up 13 long pages. What comes over is how painfully useless the court process is. Everything is relayed to the judge through an interpreter. The innocent (Babun and Silindu) don’t have a clue what’s going on or how they’re expected to behave. The guilty (Babehami, Fernando and the Korala) are familiar with court protocol, take the stand one after the other and lie their head off, but are believed.

It’s notable that Woolf doesn’t ridicule or satirise the process. That would be an easy win. He does something subtler but much worse. He shows all the procedures being strictly adhered to and the judge having a pretty shrewd idea that something is wrong with the prosecution i.e. taking against the bad guys. But he can only act on the basis of the evidence placed before him and that is all in their favour, one eye witness after another queuing up to lie about seeing Babun break into the headman’s house then make off with the loot.

And so the judge finds Babun guilty and sentences him to six months ‘rigorous imprisonment’. (No one is charging Silindu with actual burglary and so he is dismissed without charge.)

Silindu plans revenge

Punchi Menika had been present in court throughout the trial and a fairly big plot hole is that neither Silindu nor Babun thought to call her as a witness to prove their central claim that Fernando was pursuing a vendetta against them because they refused to let him take Punchi away. After the verdict she staggers out into the street where she is joined by Silindu. He is muttering to himself and mutters and laughs all the days’-long trek back to their village.

Because at last he understands the nature of the ‘fate’ which has been doing him down and has a plan. He is a hunter, a well-known hunter, with a gas-gun.

So they all arrive back in the village. The next day Silindu goes to call on Babehami. The latter is understandably nervous about what’s happened but Silindu lures him into a fall sense of security by telling him that he now understands that the Bad Guy, the bad influence in his life for years, has been Babun Appu. Silindu goes on to say there is nothing now to stop Punchi Menika being given to Fernando. This is what Babehami wants to hear though he is still unnerved. He has to tell Silindu to slow down, that Punchi Menika can only slip into Fernando’s house at night, secretly, in order to keep up appearances.

Then Silindu says he wants to sort out the misunderstanding whereby another man has been assigned his chena. Since Babun was at fault and has been imprisoned can this not now be reversed? Again he forces the pace and wants Babehami to go with him and tell the usurper, Appu, that he’s got to relinquish the chena. Again Babehami is suspicious, he doesn’t like being rushed into anything. But on the other hand it would be better to get everything sorted as soon as possible and specially to keep Silindu onside.

So he lets himself be persuaded to set off on the long trek to the chena, during which Silindu becomes more and more excited, telling increasingly pertinent stories about how the hunters might wound and corner the old buffalo who will wait till the very last minute, when the hunter thinks he’s won, and then charge. And as Babehami finally realises something is up, he turns just in time to see Silindu racing towards him, virtually foaming at the mouth, and then shoot him at point-blank range, ripping a hole in his chest.

Silindu kicks the corpse then hurries back to the village. Here he finds Fernando in his compound and simply walks over to him with his gun levelled. As Fernando tries to duck behind the fence Silindu fires between the slats and rips his guts out.

Silindu walks calmly back to his house, neatly leans his gun in a corner, comes out again and sees the crowd gathering round the headman’s compound, before walking into the jungle and making for the track which leads to Kamburupitiya.

Walking to Kamburupitiya

Silindu doesn’t know exactly what he wants to do and Woolf shows us his thoughts, that he doesn’t realise just how much trouble he’s in. He thinks he might be able to go back to the village and live a normal life, the worst happening that the other villagers might bully him a bit. On the evening of the third day he arrives at Kamburupitiya and goes straight to the house of the local administrator, the Ratemahatmaya, a Sinhalese.

This man is fussy and nervous. At first he says it’s late but he sits up when Silindu tells him he’s committed a murder. When Silindu goes on to calmly explain that he is the murderer and has killed two men, the official is at first scared.

The light of the lamp fell upon the dark, livid face. It was the face of the grey monkeys which leap above the jungle among the tree-tops, and peer down at you through the branches; a face scarred and pinched by suffering and weariness and fear. It was as if something evil from the darkness, which he did not understand, had suddenly appeared in his quiet verandah. (p.140)

This is good, isn’t it? It reminds me of the fear expressed in many of Rudyard Kipling’s Indian stories, some of which are out-and-out horror stories.

Anyway, the Ratemaharatmaya is a nervous and ineffectual man. Not knowing what to do he officiously demands that Silindu should stand, even though he’s exhausted from trekking through the jungle for three days. When Silindu is slow to react the Ratemaharatmaya gets his servant to kick him.

After some hesitation he forces Silindu to accompany him in a bullock cart three-quarters of a mile to the residence of the white British magistrate. This is the same man who tried and sentenced Bupan. Silindu has never seen such a clean room before, full of so much furniture. The narrator explains that it’s just a cheap rug on the floor, a table with pens and papers on it, and an old bookshelf, but Silindu is dazzled by it, and in this moment the reader very vividly feels the difference between the two worlds, the urban colonial world and the incredibly primitive world of the village.

As in the courtroom scene, the magistrate is painted sympathetically. For example, unlike the Ratemaharatmaya he sees that Silindu is exhausted and lets him sit down. Still, he insists the formalities are gone through, so he thoroughly questions Silindu, who freely and openly gives a complete account of how he murdered Babehami and Fernando.

Back to Beddegama

Having done so, Silindu naively expects to be punished straightaway. He vaguely hopes that, having explained that he just wanted to eliminate the source of evil in the village and bring peace, he’ll be allowed to go back home. Instead he is, of course, consigned to a cage-like lockup overnight.

Next day a procession of the magistrate, the Ratemaharatmaya and various servants set off with Silindu on the trek back to the village, to make a formal enquiry. Here they find the two corpses, still lying untouched where they fell, examine them, make notes etc. Then the magistrate sets up base in the shade of a tree and interviews a series of witnesses. Everyone corroborates Silindu’s story but the facts were never in doubt, just how they are interpreted.

For now we see the grand design of the novel as a whole, which is to juxtapose the two completely different value systems, of town and village, of literate and illiterate, above all of colonial law and jungle culture – and observe in detail how they fail to match or comprehend each other.

The magistrate is given a speech in which he shows a surprising understanding of Silindu’s mentality. He understands that the villagers just want to be left alone to live their miserable lives in peace. In this they’re like the animals of the jungle which the magistrate hunts, something he shares with Silindu. They both know that jungle animals are dangerous when injured or cornered, as Silindu was after his family was attacked by Fernando and Babehami.

The mad old Buddhist wanderer

After the afternoon of questioning, Silindu spends the night locked up, then is taken back to Kamburupitiya, and from there sent west to Tangala. Silindu is taken there by a simple peon who loves talking. Along the way they fall in with other travellers. The first night they sleep, along with other travellers, in a shop by the roadside. There are two traders and a filthy old man, a wanderer who is generally considered mad. The peon has mocked Silindu to the other travellers but the old man sees his case is right: he was defending himself when he was attacked. That said, he is a Buddhist and keeps repeating the Buddhist dogma that all killing, of anything, is a sin, including all the animals Silindu has spent his entire life hunting in the jungle.

Suddenly something in Silindu snaps, and he throws himself at the feet of the old man saying that, Yes, yes, now he understands: all the animals of the jungle live in fear, there is no end to the killing, he thought he could find peace by killing his two antagonists but all he did was increase the killing and the fear. Surprised, the Buddhist old man tells him it is never too late to acquire merit to improve your next rebirth, tells him to spend his last days in holy thoughts and teaches him a Buddhist scripture, a sentence from the Pali to memorise and repeat.

This conversion to Buddhism is important. Maybe it allowed Woolf to make some points about what was and still is the main religion in Sri Lanka. But within the narrative it indicates a new and different attitude to his life. Previously Silindu had thought a dark fate was out to get him with evil continually coming out of the jungle and he felt beaten down and defeated by it, which led to his outbursts of anger. Now he has accepted his fate, he finally finds the peace and rest he has been seeking all his life. In a sense, the novel has a Buddhist message in how it shows that fighting back or revenge multiply the causes of unrest and disquiet. Only complete acceptance can bring real peace to the spirit.

Trial at Tangala

Sindilu is locked up in the town gaol for 3 weeks. One day he spots Babun but the latter is a changed man, sickly and yellow, his fine muscle tone wasted and all the sparkle gone from his eyes. When Silindu yells at him from his cell that he has killed Fernando and Babehima so now everything will be alright, Babun replies that he is mad, he knows he will die in this prison, nothing is alright, and he makes a point of avoiding Sindilu thereafter.

After three weeks, the date of his trial arrives and Silindu goes through the motions, once again answering what he takes to be repetitive pointless questions. His defence lawyer tries to get him off on account of his madness, but Silindu answers the questions clearly and logically, explaining how he cold-bloodedly planned the murder of the two men, and so the jury quickly finds him guilty of murder, and the judge sentences him to be hanged in two weeks’ time.

With four days left to go a smartly dressed Sinhalese official arrives at Sindilu’s cells and announces that his hanging has been commuted to 20 years hard labour, and his part of the narrative ends with a short, blunt, brutal indication of what this will mean.

A jail guard came and unlocked the cell gate. Silindu was taken out and made to squat down in the long shed which ran down the centre of the courtyard. A wooden mallet was put into his hand and a pile of cocoanut husk thrown down in front of him. For the remainder of that day, and daily for the remainder of twenty years, he had to make coir by beating cocoanut husks with the wooden mallet. (p.167)

Aftermath

When Silindu had been brought by the magistrate to the village to take part in the inquiries, he had been met by his daughter Punchi Menika, Buban Appu’s wife, the proximate cause of all the trouble insofar as it was Fernando’s infatuation with her that triggered the series of events.

She asks Silindu if it’s true that he killed Babehim and Fernando and he says yes. She says it would have been better if she had voluntarily gone to Fernando but that makes Silindu angry and he says, Never, he would never have allowed it, and she shouldn’t think like that. He tells her Babun will be released from prison in a matter of months and he will return to look after her. He tells her to wait.

After Silindu is taken away what that waiting entails is carrying on sharing the manless house with Silindu’s sister, Karlinahami. At fifty, Karlinahami is a very old woman, in terms of jungle life. Maybe it’s worth giving this description in full, because it gives a clear indication how unsentimentally Woolf describes this harsh subject matter. And how utterly convincing it is, written with all the depth of first hand experience.

Karlinahami was nearly fifty years old now, and in a jungle village a woman — and especially a woman without a husband — is very old, very near the grave at fifty. The sun and the wind, the toil, the hunger, and the disease sap the strength of body and mind, bring folds and lines into the skin, and dry up the breasts. A woman is old at forty or even thirty. No one, man or woman, in the jungle, lives to the term of years allotted to man. It would have been difficult to say whether Karlinahami looked nearer eighty than ninety, nearer ninety than a hundred. The jungle had left its mark on her. Her body was bent and twisted, like the stunted trees which the south-west wind had tortured into grotesque shapes. The skin, too, on her face and thin limbs reminded one of the bark of the jungle trees; it was shrunken against the bones, and wrinkled, and here and there flaking off into whitish brown scales, as the bark flakes off the kumbuk-trees. The flesh of the cheeks had dried and shrunk; the lips seemed to have sunk into the toothless mouth, leaving a long line damp with saliva under the nose. And under the lined forehead were the eyes, lifeless and filmy, peering out of innumerable wrinkles. The eyes were not blind, but they seemed to be sightless — the pupil, the iris, and even the white had merged — because the mind was dying. It is what usually happens in the jungle — to women especially— the mind dies before the body. Imperceptibly the power of initiative, of thought, of feeling, dies out before the monotony of life, the monotony of the tearing hot wind, the monotony of endless trees, the monotony of perpetual hardship. It will happen at an age when in other climates a man is in his prime, and a woman still bears children. The man will still help at the work in the chena, cutting down the undergrowth and sowing the crop; but he will do so unthinking, without feeling, like a machine or an animal; and when it is done he will sit hour after hour in his compound staring with his filmy eyes into nothing, motionless, except when he winds one long thin arm round himself, like a grey monkey, and scratches himself on the back. And the woman still carries the waterpot to the muddy pool to fetch water; still cooks the meal in the house. While they still stand upright, they must do their work; they eat and they sleep; they mutter frequently to themselves; but they do not speak to others, and no one speaks to them. They live in a twilight, where even pain is scarcely felt. (p.167)

The objective narrator dispassionately describes the impact of all these tragic events on the village. At a stroke the village loses one more house (reducing the number to five) and seven of its 25 inhabitants, for the headman’s wife, Nanchohami, decides to leave, taking her two children with her. Two dead, two in prison, three left.

Woolf explains how the headman’s house is ill-omened, associated with devils. No-one wanted to live there, well-made though it was. And so Woolf gives a bravura description of how the abandoned house is slowly recolonised by the jungle, low bushes taking over the fence, the walls developing holes, the branches it was made of taking root and growing, plants on the rooftiles – after three years the whole thing has reverted to the wild.

The new headman is the witch doctor, the vederala, Punchirala, the one who cast the spell of sickness on Sindilu when he refused to hand Punchi Menika over to him.

As to Punchi Menika, she partakes of the vagueness of the peasant, and so she has little or no sense of time. She was told to wait for Babun Appu to be freed but doesn’t know how to count time and so when to expect his return. They all hear the news that Sindilu’s sentence was commuted but all ‘life imprisonment’ means to her is that she’ll never see him again, so he drops out of her life and thinking.

Instead she has to work like a dog, scavenging roots and berries from the jungle in the fallow season, working on other people’s chenas and living on charity. But she hopes that Babun Appu will return and the evil will end, she will have closure and peace. She and the villagers debate, sometimes bad-temperedly, whether the six months have passed or not.

Eventually Punchi Menika decides she must find out for herself. Punchirala explains that she will have to go to the prison which is in Tangalla. First she must do the two-days’ walk along a trail to Kamburupitiya, and then join the bigger road which heads west to Tangalla. So Punchi Menika makes some kurakkan cakes and wraps some uncooked grain, and sets off.

The path to Kamburupitiya is alright, she’s used to it, but she hates the wide straight road to Tangalla, packed with carts and bullocks and traders. She is terrified of the strange villages she passes through and feels all the strangers are looking and laughing at her. She arrives in Tangalla on market day which feels like chaos to her, stumbles through the tangle of streets to arrive in the market place at its busiest, before felling to the hill on the outskirts of town.

There’s one big building in isolation at the top of the hill. In a consciously artistic passage Woolf describes how Punchi Menika goes to the top of the hill and there finds an exhausted old man tending a pathetic herd of five cows. He confirms that the building is the prison but warns her, in heavily fatalistic tones, that nobody ever comes out, especially if they come from a village such as hers (and his, he originally came from a village not far from Beddegama). When she tells him she’s come to discover the fate of her husband Babun Appu, the old man says he’ll be dead.

She taps on the huge door of the prison but so diffidently that the sound doesn’t carry inside then sits down with vast resignation. Hours later a guard opens the gate and sees her. She asks to know the fate of her husband. He, like all low ranking officials, demands money but she pleads she is far too poor to have any. So the guard tells her, yes, he knew the man Babun, and he died two months earlier.

Punchi Menika is too tired and fatalistic to cry and beat her breast, She just walks away, down the hill to where the old man is sitting and confirms he hunch that her man is dead, then she sets straight off to walk back to her village. There she will be safe and have peace.

The end

Two years pass. The rains fail, the crops fail and more people die or move away. Silindu’s sister, Karlinahami, fades and dies. After two years there are only two houses left, one containing just Punchi Menilak and the other belonging to the vederala Punchirala. No-one bothers to visit the village any more, and the track to it from the outside world itself grows over. The jungle, described at such length with such power in the opening pages, is reclaiming its own.

The narrative picks up speed, covering more time from a detached distant point of view. Woolf describes how Punchirala grows old and sickly, eventually too old to care for himself and moves into Punchi Menilak’s hut. Now she has to forage for two, since they don’t have the strength to clear chanaks any more and, anyway, the rains keep failing.

Instead of being grateful Punchirala, now an old man in his 40s, becomes more spiteful and hateful with age. Hunger and fever eventually give him release.

And then, on the last two pages, the jungle surges forward to reclaim its own, the ceaseless plant life, bushes and trees moving right up to the perimeter of her compound, then over it and up to the door of her hut.

In an ending which feels like a fairy tale or a legend, but without any sentiment, Punchi Menilak becomes one with the beasts of the jungle. Her feeble foraging expeditions no longer scare the wild pigs or deer. When she was small, Sindilu had told her that you have to live many years before you understand the beasts of the jungle. Now she understands them. She has become one of them.

Perpetual hunger wastes her away. Eventually, in her last few days, she is bedbound with fever. The fire between its three stones which has burned for generations goes out. One night, in her last moments, she wakes from fever to see two small eyes shining in the doorway. Suddenly terrified she calls out to her long-distant father that the devil has come for her, Save me, save me!

But as Punchi Menilak falls backward the animal moves through the doorway into her hut. It is a wild boar and it closes in. The last sentence reads:

As she fell back, the great boar grunted softly, and glided like a shadow towards her into the hut.

I assume the boar is going to eat her, possibly while she is still conscious. The circular shape of the narrative, returning here at the end to the triumph of the all-conquering jungle which was so extensively described at the start, now that the story has dwindled down to one last human survivor on the brink of being extinguished, has a fairy tale feel. But it is not a fairy tale for children.


Descriptions of village people

The spirit of the jungle is in the village, and in the people who live in it. They are simple, sullen, silent men. In their faces you can see plainly the fear and hardship of their lives. They are very near to the animals which live in the jungle around them. They look at you with the melancholy and patient stupidity of the buffalo in their eyes, or the cunning of the jackal. And there is in them the blind anger of the jungle, the ferocity of the leopard, and the sudden fury of the bear.

People who live in towns can hardly realise how persistent and violent are the desires of those who live in villages like Beddagama. In many ways, and in this beyond all others, they are very near to the animals; in fact, in this they are more brutal and uncontrolled than the brutes; that, while the animals have their seasons, man alone is perpetually dominated by his desires. (p.48)

The minds of most villagers are extraordinarily tortuous and suspicious.

Why I write summaries

I give such detailed summaries of the novels I read for two reasons. 1) As notes to myself about what happens and what I found noteworthy. 2) Because just using the generic terms we have to describe books, such as ‘realist’ or ‘sentimental’, in a general description, is always inadequate. Giving a synopsis of the plot is the best way to convey the complex reality of engaging with a long narrative, much more effective than stock phrases. And in many cases a full summary of the plot shows that the standard descriptions are actually wrong.

Plus 3) I do summaries because they allow me to record my reactions to narratives as they unfold in real time – reactions of surprise or excitement or boredom – and some readers have commented that they enjoy following me on this journey of discovery and understanding rather than reading the flat factual summaries you can get on Wikipedia or Sparks Notes. Wikipedia summaries are never shocked or surprised but I frequently am, as well as delighted, bored, irritated and so on. I record my honest responses. Sometimes, later, on reflection, I moderate or even retract my opinions, but the summary remains of my initial responses and some readers find that useful.

Anyway, this summary is designed to be 1) helpful for anyone who’s never read and is never going to read ‘The Village in the Jungle’, and 2) to give a really detailed sense of what the book is about.

Glossary

I make glossaries of unusual words I encounter in books partly for their own interest, but also because odd or unusual words shed light on a text from a different angle. They offer a kind of different route into and through a text. They are like threads in a complicated tapestry, gleaming for a moment, linking disparate moments; especially in a novel like this which is trying to inhabit a completely different culture, with its own language, and so uses them very freely.

Part of the verisimilitude of the novel is Woolf’s concern not just to capture customs, modes of life and speech of his Sri Lankans, but to use their own terminology. In fact the book contains numerous footnotes, one every few pages, giving the meaning of the many native words he deploys (most but not all in Sinhala) as well as explaining other factual elements, such as the native titles given to different ranks in the social hierarchy, the difference between Tamils and Sinhalese, the likely origins of different religious rituals and so on. It kind of overflows with authenticity.

  • Aiyo! – common exclamation or cry
  • amma – mother
  • Appochchi – Father
  • chatty – earthenware bowl for carrying water
  • chena – patch of jungle cleared and sown
  • dagoba – the shrines built by kings long ago to hold the relics of the Lord Buddha
  • gama – village, hence Beddegama, ‘the village in the jungle’
  • gambaraya – oversees the cultivation of rice fields for their owners
  • ge – house
  • goiya – caste of cultivators
  • Kachcheri – government offices
  • kapurala – persons who perform services in temples
  • kunji – rice gruel
  • kurrakan – a grain
  • punchi – little
  • mudalali – rich trader
  • poya day – day of the change of the moon, kept as a holiday
  • Ralahami – respectful form of address
  • Rodiyas – lowest Sri Lankan caste
  • sanyasi – Hindu holy man
  • veddas – aboriginal inhabitants of Sri Lanka before the Singhalese arrived; a term often associated with devils and used as an insult
  • vederala – native ‘doctor’
  • yakko – male devil, common insult
  • yakkini – female devil, common insult

Thoughts

‘The Village in the Jungle’ won very good reviews, not only in Britain but also in Sri Lanka, where colonial officials testified to its accuracy and the island’s small literary community recognised a milestone account of their own culture.

As the years went by Woolf was delighted when it came to be a set text in Sri Lankan schools. In her biography of Leonard Woolf, Victoria Glendinning describes it as ‘a foundational novel in the Sri Lankan literary canon’. Christopher Ondaatje in his Afterword says that it ‘has become an essential part of the literary culture of Sri Lanka’.

Part of what made it so unique is the way it is written entirely from the native rather than the colonial point of view. My summary makes that pretty obvious without needing much additional comment. Various blurbs describe how the British colonial system is not directly criticised but just shown to be largely irrelevant to, and at odds with, the actual lives and values of the locals.

The main and obvious comment is how amazingly authentic it appears. It’s a miracle of imaginative projection. There isn’t a single false note. You are utterly transported into the mindset of the jungle, the village and its illiterate peasant inhabitants, in all the superstitious wretchedness of their conditions and lives. It’s an absolutely amazing achievement.


Credit

‘The Village in the Jungle’ by Leonard Woolf was published by Edward Arnold in 1913. Page references are to the 2008 Eland Publishing paperback edition, though the text is freely available online.

Related link

Related reviews

Selected Essays by Virginia Woolf – 4. Looking On

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Thunder at Wembley (1924: 3 pages)

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

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

What?

The Cinema (1926: 5 pages)

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

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

?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How beautiful a London street is…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the most peculiar essay in the selection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. The Docks of London (December 1931)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Oxford Street Tide (1932: 4 pages)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Flying Over London (6 pages)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contemporary flying reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment 1: the failure of feminism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment 2: preparing for war

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

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

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


Credit

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

Related links

Related reviews

  • Virginia Woolf reviews

A Room of One’s Own by Virginia Woolf (1929)

Literature is impoverished beyond our counting by the doors that have been shut upon women.

A pioneering work of feminism, Virginia Woolf’s long essay, ‘A Room of One’s Own’, was based on two lectures she was invited to deliver at Cambridge University in October 1928 on the subject of ‘Women and Fiction’. In fact the text as we have it was extensively worked over, and is divided into six, not two, sections. In the 1977 Granada paperback edition I own, it is 107 pages long, not quite book length but long for an essay.

Be warned: it gets off to a very, very slow start. Several times I put it down, bored and dismayed by the deliberately whimsical inconsequentiality of the opening section. It only really gets interesting with the start of section 3, about page 40, and from then on contains a steady flow of interesting, sometimes important, insights and ideas.

Section 1. A library, lunch and dinner in Cambridge (20 pages)

Summaries (Wikipedia, the blurb on the back) always quote ‘A Room of One’s Own’s eighth sentence as its most significant message:

A woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction.

She states this right at the very beginning of the text and then explains that she will try and convey the thought processes which led her to this conclusion. The trouble is that these processes are long-winded, deliberately whimsical and digressive, and slow to get started.

The odd or funny thing about this is that one of the oldest sexist libels against women is that they are incapable of logical, rational thought – and here is what is supposed to be one of the great feminist texts of the century apparently justifying that very libel, going out of its way to demonstrate Woolf’s reluctance to write clearly and logically, and her preference for apparently aimless, subjective rambling. Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s a slab from the second paragraph:

Here then was I (call me Mary Beton, Mary Seton, Mary Carmichael or by any name you please – it is not a matter of any importance) sitting on the banks of a river a week or two ago in fine October weather, lost in thought. That collar I have spoken of [the commission to deliver lectures about] women and fiction, the need of coming to some conclusion on a subject that raises all sorts of prejudices and passions, bowed my head to the ground.

To the right and left bushes of some sort, golden and crimson, glowed with the colour, even it seemed burnt with the heat, of fire. On the further bank the willows wept in perpetual lamentation, their hair about their shoulders. The river reflected whatever it chose of sky and bridge and burning tree, and when the undergraduate had oared his boat through the reflections they closed again, completely, as if he had never been. There one might have sat the clock round lost in thought.

Thought – to call it by a prouder name than it deserved – had let its line down into the stream. It swayed, minute after minute, hither and thither among the reflections and the weeds, letting the water lift it and sink it until – you know the little tug – the sudden conglomeration of an idea at the end of one’s line: and then the cautious hauling of it in, and the careful laying of it out?

Alas, laid on the grass how small, how insignificant this thought of mine looked; the sort of fish that a good fisherman puts back into the water so that it may grow fatter and be one day worth cooking and eating. I will not trouble you with that thought now, though if you look carefully you may find it for yourselves in the course of what I am going to say…

‘I will not trouble you with that thought now…’ Instead she rambles on to describe getting up and setting off walking across the grass. Here she is collared and her train of thought interrupted by an officious college beadle who tells her to keep off the grass and walk on the path. ‘What idea it had been that had sent me so audaciously trespassing I could not now remember’ and she doesn’t tell us.

Something makes her think about the essays of Charles Lamb, and she remembers the one where he comments on seeing a manuscript of the poem Lycidas by John Milton and marvelling that the great work was ever different from how it’s come down to us (from Lamb’s essay ‘Oxford in the Vacation’). Then she remembers that the manuscript of Lycidas is kept in Cambridge, so she sets off to the library where it’s kept (the library of Trinity College, Cambridge). Here she is outraged when a flunky tells here that ‘ladies are only admitted to the library if accompanied by a Fellow of the College or furnished with a letter of introduction.’ She turns away, angry and disgusted.

She hears the organ playing in a chapel, calling people – well, men, old men dressed in fur-trimmed cloaks and college gowns – to a service, which in turn triggers a sort of historical fantasy.

The outside of the chapel remained. As you know, its high domes and pinnacles can be seen, like a sailing-ship always voyaging never arriving, lit up at night and visible for miles, far away across the hills. Once, presumably, this quadrangle with its smooth lawns, its massive buildings and the chapel itself was marsh too, where the grasses waved and the swine rootled. Teams of horses and oxen, I thought, must have hauled the stone in wagons from far countries, and then with infinite labour the grey blocks in whose shade I was now standing were poised in order one on top of another, and then the painters brought their glass for the windows, and the masons were busy for centuries up on that roof with putty and cement, spade and trowel. Every Saturday somebody must have poured gold and silver out of a leathern purse into their ancient fists, for they had their beer and skittles presumably of an evening. An unending stream of gold and silver, I thought, must have flowed into this court perpetually to keep the stones coming and the masons working; to level, to ditch, to dig and to drain. But it was then the age of faith, and money was poured liberally to set these stones on a deep foundation, and when the stones were raised, still more money was poured in from the coffers of kings and queens and great nobles to ensure that hymns should be sung here and scholars taught. Lands were granted; tithes were paid. And when the age of faith was over and the age of reason had come, still the same flow of gold and silver went on; fellowships were founded; lectureships endowed; only the gold and silver flowed now, not from the coffers of the king. but from the chests of merchants and manufacturers, from the purses of men who had made, say, a fortune from industry, and returned, in their wills, a bounteous share of it to endow more chairs, more lectureships, more fellowships in the university where they had learnt their craft. Hence the libraries and laboratories; the observatories; the splendid equipment of costly and delicate instruments which now stands on glass shelves, where centuries ago the grasses waved and the swine rootled. Certainly, as I strolled round the court, the foundation of gold and silver seemed deep enough; the pavement laid solidly over the wild grasses…

You can see how it’s not really discussing the subject of ‘women and fiction’ nor explaining the thinking behind her ‘money and a room of her own’ conclusion.

Then, in the story of her day in Cambridge, it’s time for lunch. She thinks it a shame that traditional fiction rarely describes actual dishes people consume and so she goes out of her way to describe what she had for lunch.

I shall take the liberty to defy that convention and to tell you that the lunch on this occasion began with soles, sunk in a deep dish, over which the college cook had spread a counterpane of the whitest cream, save that it was branded here and there with brown spots like the spots on the flanks of a doe. After that came the partridges, but if this suggests a couple of bald, brown birds on a plate you are mistaken. The partridges, many and various, came with all their retinue of sauces and salads, the sharp and the sweet, each in its order; their potatoes, thin as coins but not so hard; their sprouts, foliated as rosebuds but more succulent. And no sooner had the roast and its retinue been done with than the silent servingman, the Beadle himself perhaps in a milder manifestation, set before us, wreathed in napkins, a confection which rose all sugar from the waves. To call it pudding and so relate it to rice and tapioca would be an insult.

She listens to the civilised talk at the table and feels like something has changed since the war. What is it? Well, poetry.

Before the war at a luncheon party like this people would have said precisely the same things but they would have sounded different, because in those days they were accompanied by a sort of humming noise, not articulate, but musical, exciting, which changed the value of the words themselves. Could one set that humming noise to words? Perhaps with the help of the poets one could. A book lay beside me and, opening it, I turned casually enough to Tennyson.

And she quotes a stanza from Tennyson and then one from Christina Rossetti, the idea being that the rhythms of these poets dictated how people spoke before the war but now, since the war, that rhythm has been lost. The thought makes her laugh out loud but when someone enquires why she’s laughing, rather than confess this rather frivolous idea, she instead points to a Manx cat, a cat without a tail, which she’s seen through a window walking across the college quadrangle. Left alone again, she continues about Tennyson and Rossetti:

What poets, I cried aloud, as one does in the dusk, what poets they were!

The old poets expressed feelings one was familiar with and so one hummed and declaimed them with confidence and happiness. Modern poetry is very different:

But the living poets express a feeling that is actually being made and torn out of us at the moment. One does not recognize it in the first place; often for some reason one fears it; one watches it with keenness and compares it jealously and suspiciously with the old feeling that one knew. Hence the difficulty of modern poetry; and it is because of this difficulty that one cannot remember more than two consecutive lines of any good modern poet.

For ‘the illusion which inspired Tennyson and Christina Rossetti to sing so passionately about the coming of their loves is far rarer now than then.’ Did the old poets sing under the influence of a beautiful illusion? Did the war strip away that illusion and show us the truth of human nature? Ah, what is truth, what is illusion? (the kind of rhetorical question which packs ‘The Waves’). The question sets her thinking, musing and daydreaming as she walks the road towards Headingley and is so distracted that she misses the turning she wanted to take to Fernham [Fernham is a fictional college, an amalgamation of the Cambridge colleges, Newnham and Girton].

Yes indeed, which was truth and which was illusion? I asked myself. What was the truth about these houses, for example, dim and festive now with their red windows in the dusk, but raw and red and squalid, with their sweets and their bootlaces, at nine o’clock in the morning? And the willows and the river and the gardens that run down to the river, vague now with the mist stealing over them, but gold and red in the sunlight – which was the truth, which was the illusion about them? I spare you the twists and turns of my cogitations, for no conclusion was found on the road to Headingley, and I ask you to suppose that I soon found out my mistake about the turning and retraced my steps to Fernham.

‘I spare you the twists and turns of my cogitations…’ she writes, but that, of course, is exactly what she is not doing. Surely any keen young undergraduate who turned up for her lecture (or bought this book) expecting some insight into the subject of women and fiction was expecting more than this. A long self-indulgent account of the author’s rambling day, complete with the full menu of the nice lunch she ate, and her strolling around the city? You might expect the lecture to eventually return to the nominal subject, but the most impressive thing about it is the way it refuses to address the subject at all. Instead she now tells us that her autumn rambling triggered a kind of vision of an autumn garden:

A fancy – that the lilac was shaking its flowers over the garden walls, and the brimstone butterflies were scudding hither and thither, and the dust of the pollen was in the air. A wind blew, from what quarter I know not, but it lifted the half-grown leaves so that there was a flash of silver grey in the air. It was the time between the lights when colours undergo their intensification and purples and golds burn in window-panes like the beat of an excitable heart; when for some reason the beauty of the world revealed and yet soon to perish (here I pushed into the garden, for, unwisely, the door was left open and no beadles seemed about), the beauty of the world which is so soon to perish, has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting the heart asunder. The gardens of Fernham lay before me in the spring twilight, wild and open, and in the long grass, sprinkled and carelessly flung, were daffodils and bluebells, not orderly perhaps at the best of times, and now wind-blown and waving as they tugged at their roots. The windows of the building, curved like ships’ windows among generous waves of red brick, changed from lemon to silver under the flight of the quick spring clouds. Somebody was in a hammock, somebody, but in this light they were phantoms only, half guessed, half seen, raced across the grass—would no one stop her?—and then on the terrace, as if popping out to breathe the air, to glance at the garden, came a bent figure, formidable yet humble, with her great forehead and her shabby dress—could it be the famous scholar, could it be J—— H—— herself? [according to the notes, this is Jane Harrison, classical scholar and anthropologist] All was dim, yet intense too, as if the scarf which the dusk had flung over the garden were torn asunder by star or sword – the gash of some terrible reality leaping, as its way is, out of the heart of the spring.

But just when you thought she might be trembling on the brink of saying something clear, logical, rational and useful, she cuts away to… dinner! Yes she is in another college hall stuffing herself with a posh dinner.

Here was my soup. Dinner was being served in the great dining-hall. Far from being spring it was in fact an evening in October. Everybody was assembled in the big dining-room. Dinner was ready. Here was the soup. It was a plain gravy soup. There was nothing to stir the fancy in that. One could have seen through the transparent liquid any pattern that there might have been on the plate itself. But there was no pattern. The plate was plain. Next came beef with its attendant greens and potatoes—a homely trinity, suggesting the rumps of cattle in a muddy market, and sprouts curled and yellowed at the edge, and bargaining and cheapening and women with string bags on Monday morning. There was no reason to complain of human nature’s daily food, seeing that the supply was sufficient and coal-miners doubtless were sitting down to less. Prunes and custard followed. And if anyone complains that prunes, even when mitigated by custard, are an uncharitable vegetable (fruit they are not), stringy as a miser’s heart and exuding a fluid such as might run in misers’ veins who have denied themselves wine and warmth for eighty years and yet not given to the poor, he should reflect that there are people whose charity embraces even the prune. Biscuits and cheese came next, and here the water-jug was liberally passed round, for it is the nature of biscuits to be dry, and these were biscuits to the core. That was all. The meal was over.

To recap, it is one of the oldest sexist libels that women are incapable of abstract, logical thought and instead are limited to either a narcissistic obsession with the minutiae of their own lives, or, at best, with humble domestic topics such as cooking and gardening. In the opening sections of this book it seems as if Woolf is going out of her way to justify the grossest sexist libelling of the female mind? I was genuinely shocked by the self-centred, rambling set of inconsequential impressions and memories with which it opens.

And continues in the same vein. The college guests go back to the room of a friend of hers, a science tutor, where they open wine and gossip (first topic of conversation being someone who’s recently got married, as if she’s deliberately playing to the grossest stereotype of the female mind being continually obsessed with who’s going out with who, getting married to who, getting divorced from who). But this gossip doesn’t hold her and again she drifts off into her own personal fantasy.

A scene of masons on a high roof some five centuries ago. Kings and nobles brought treasure in huge sacks and poured it under the earth. This scene was for ever coming alive in my mind and placing itself by another of lean cows and a muddy market and withered greens and the stringy hearts of old men – these two pictures, disjointed and disconnected and nonsensical as they were, were for ever coming together and combating each other and had me entirely at their mercy. The best course, unless the whole talk was to be distorted, was to expose what was in my mind to the air, when with good luck it would fade and crumble like the head of the dead king when they opened the coffin at Windsor. Briefly, then, I told Miss Seton about the masons who had been all those years on the roof of the chapel, and about the kings and queens and nobles bearing sacks of gold and silver on their shoulders, which they shovelled into the earth; and then how the great financial magnates of our own time came and laid cheques and bonds, I suppose, where the others had laid ingots and rough lumps of gold. All that lies beneath the colleges down there, I said; but this college, where we are now sitting, what lies beneath its gallant red brick and the wild unkempt grasses of the garden? What force is behind that plain china off which we dined, and (here it popped out of my mouth before I could stop it) the beef, the custard and the prunes?

I thought it would go on forever like this but at the very end of the first section the tone does, at last, change and some sort of facts enter. She makes some kind of point. She abruptly describes the immense struggle it took the education pioneers Emily Davis and Barbara Bodichon to raise the money to found the first women’s college in Cambridge, Girton College, which was opened in 1869 (and where the lecture is being given).

And for the first time the essay comes to life and actually addresses the struggle for women’s rights. Woolf quickly lays down the reasons why it was so difficult to raise the money to establish this college for women’s higher education, namely:

1. In the mid-Victorian era women were considered baby factories. Woolf invents a fictional Victorian woman who had no fewer than 13 children, and this was physically exhausting and immensely time consuming. No wonder so many of their foremothers had no time or inclination for business or moneymaking activities of any kind.

2. The law forbade women from owning money or property. Any money they made, by law belonged to their husbands. What motivation was there, then, to set up in business, to found business dynasties and so on when, the moment you married, the entire thing was handed over to your husband? No motivation at all. Demotivation.

After throwing this bombshell of hard fact into her talk, Woolf returns to her earlier musing, meditative mode and describes walking back to the inn she was staying at, pondering the experiences of her day – being chastised by the beadle, being turned away from the library, watching all the crusty old men lining up to enter their church service – and reconsiders it in the light of the point she’s just made about women’s lack of legal and financial rights, ‘thinking of the safety and prosperity of the one sex and of the poverty and insecurity of the other.’

It’s only now that the rather dim reader (i.e. me) can see that there was a pattern to these ramblings after all: that all these ‘trivial’ personal experiences are designed to build up a portrait of a world where women are subject to an infinite number of regulations and restrictions, from the petty to the serious, life-limiting. And so, she wonders, what is the cumulative effect of so many restrictions on women’s minds and on the tradition of women’s writing?

What is the effect of tradition and of the lack of tradition upon the mind of a writer? She doesn’t quite say this but the implication is clear: that male writers benefited from every privilege possible in a patriarchal society, whereas women writers had to fight against a huge battalion of legal, financial, cultural, traditional enemies facing them at every turn.

She isn’t quite that vehement, but the thought is there, implied in everything she’s said. To be honest it was only reading the introduction to the Oxford University Press edition that helped me see that what comes over as a meandering stream of memories and impressions can be stripped down and turned into bullet points which are a list of exclusions which women have been subject to:

  • being told by a man to keep off the grass destroys her train of thought
  • being excluded from the library of the male-only college speaks for itself, a grotesque form of intellectual censorship
  • being excluded from the all-male congregation going into a church service stands for women’s exclusion from organised religion since time immemorial
  • and then something I hadn’t realised at all, the point of giving the menus, of describing what she had for lunch and what for dinner, was to contrast the fancy haute cuisine menu of lunch at the all-male college with the very plain meat and two veg, prunes and custard menu at Girton, the all-women college which struggled so hard to raise the money to be founded and which still lacks the massive endowments of the all-male colleges which, of course, stretch back to the Middle Ages

When rearranged and presented like this it makes for an impressive list and a handy if highly subjective introduction to the theme of how women in England have for centuries been excluded from business, finance, education and learning and culture. And some of these incidents (the officious beadle, the blocking from the library) return throughout the text, becoming leitmotifs and symbols standing for the greater wrongs of the patriarchy, exactly as she made fairly trivial childhood incidents become repeated leitmotifs which gained layers of meaning and emotion, in her experimental novel ‘The Waves’

But this wasn’t at all obvious from actually reading the text: I had to have it explained to me by the introduction to the Oxford University Press edition (by Morag Shiach).

Section 2. The British Museum, the patriarchy, her legacy (14 pages)

Section 2 starts off a little more as you might expect a lecture to, with a little fleet of rhetorical questions:

That visit to Oxbridge and the luncheon and the dinner had started a swarm of questions: Why did men drink wine and women water? Why was one sex so prosperous and the other so poor? What effect has poverty on fiction? What conditions are necessary for the creation of works of art?

Alas, it quickly falls back into Woolf’s facetious style. There is something about her continual irony, sometimes sarcasm, which continually makes you think she isn’t serious. Hedging everything with irony makes everything a playful game which, I suggest, undermines her own cause.

A thousand questions at once suggested themselves. But one needed answers, not questions; and an answer was only to be had by consulting the learned and the unprejudiced, who have removed themselves above the strife of tongue and the confusion of body and issued the result of their reasoning and research in books which are to be found in the British Museum. If truth is not to be found on the shelves of the British Museum, where, I asked myself, picking up a notebook and a pencil, is truth?

I’ve complained of a similarly irritatingly facetious tone in H.G. Wells and E.M. Forster. Maybe it was entertaining in its day, maybe it was the standard and expected style for fiction and essays. But now it comes over as irritating and stupid. Who cares about this silly little aside about ‘truth’? ‘What is truth’ is quite a big question. Writing such silly ironies makes her sound like precisely the stereotype of the superficial woman which she is meant to be at such pains to explode.

Thus provided, thus confident and enquiring, I set out in the pursuit of truth.

What this silly ironising about ‘truth’ really highlights is that Woolf had very little formal education and never studied for a degree. In other words, she doesn’t understand what academic study is. It is silly to think she can sit down for a morning at the British Museum, skim through half a dozen books and come up with The Truth about anything. But she hides her intellectual embarrassment behind these silly petticoat jokes and is very aware of her shortcomings. When the books she orders (almost at random) arrive:

The student who has been trained in research at Oxbridge has no doubt some method of shepherding his question past all distractions till it runs into his answer as a sheep runs into its pen. The student by my side, for instance, who was copying assiduously from a scientific manual, was, I felt sure, extracting pure nuggets of the essential ore every ten minutes or so. His little grunts of satisfaction indicated so much. But if, unfortunately, one has had no training in a university, the question far from being shepherded to its pen flies like a frightened flock hither and thither, helter-skelter, pursued by a whole pack of hounds.

She discovers there’s a huge number of books written by men about women, but hardly any by women about men. Characteristically, she makes a ‘perfectly arbitrary choice of a dozen volumes or so’ and orders them up from the library stacks. (Why does she take every opportunity to emphasise how arbitrary, flighty and superficial she is? It’s like she’s playing into the enemy’s hands at every opportunity. [Or, more subtly, is she demonstrating and embodying an alternative, non-male, non-rational, non-aggrandising way of thinking, letting thoughts wander and digress and reveal their own ‘female’ truths? Discuss])

Similarly, not knowing how to study a subject and not realising it might take more than a morning to research a subject like ‘the oppression of women’ or ‘women in British history’, instead she reads a random selection of books, randomly, and makes random notes in her notebook, which she then proceeds to read out to her audience. She might as well say ‘Look how stupid and badly educated I am.’

Instead of taking careful notes and marshalling them into some semblance of an argument, Woolf admits that she spent half the time doodling the face and figure of a big, hairy bombastic man, an angry professor, the type who writes weighty tomes about the inferiority of women. Then she starts wondering what made this (made-up) figure so angry – was it because his wife had run off with a dashing cavalry officer (‘slim and elegant and dressed in astrakhan’)? Is this frivolous or subtly effective, her turning serious social questions into deliberately frivolous fictions?

In my review of ‘The Waves’, I pointed out how the six characters are never shown interacting with each other, rarely if ever have any dialogue, but instead stand stiffly like actors on a stage, facing the audience and declaiming their solipsistic monologues. This stiff absence of any interaction made me look up the symptoms of Asperger’s Syndrome and discover that they displayed every single one.

Here, the inability to focus, concentrate or develop any train of thought without wandering off into daydreaming or doodling, which Woolf attributes to herself, made me look up the symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). They are:

  • difficulty paying attention or staying focused
  • being restless or overactive
  • interrupting others or having trouble waiting
  • poor time management
  • being forgetful
  • procrastinating
  • disorganization

It’s hard not to relate at least some of these symptoms to the self-portrait of the forgetful, easily distracted woman incapable of sustained research or thought which emerges from the opening sections of this book.

The patriarchy

Eventually she finds something to say. The one thing all the books she’s skimmed through written by men about women possess is the common tone of anger. Why are so many men angry at women and so quick to put them down? This is an absolutely vast question which invokes psychology, psychoanalysis, sociology and any number of other disciples.

but having briefly mentioned it, Woolf strolls off to find a restaurant to have lunch in. Here a previous diner had left the daily newspaper. She peruses it and finds more than she found in all the books, for she realises just how profoundly England is in the grip of a patriarchy.

The most transient visitor to this planet, I thought, who picked up this paper could not fail to be aware, even from this scattered testimony, that England is under the rule of a patriarchy. Nobody in their senses could fail to detect the dominance of ‘the professor’ [the angry caricature she doodled in the museum]. His was the power and the money and the influence. He was the proprietor of the paper and its editor and sub-editor. He was the Foreign Secretary and the judge. He was the cricketer; he owned the racehorses and the yachts. He was the director of the company that pays two hundred per cent to its shareholders. He left millions to charities and colleges that were ruled by himself…He it is who will acquit or convict the murderer, and hang him, or let him go free. With the exception of the fog he seemed to control everything.

The human (male) need to feel superior

And at last, a third of the way through the book, Woolf starts to say interesting things. She starts from the premise that life is a struggle for most people, that most people need to maintain illusions to make it bearable to carry on. One of the most widespread of these illusions is finding comfort in the idea that, whatever your situation, you are at least superior to some other group of people. A feeling of superiority allows you to maintain the illusion of purpose and achievement in your life.

Woolf speculates that maybe men need to feel superior to women in order to achieve all their great achievements. This explains many things. It explains why, when a woman makes a perfectly valid criticism of some man’s writing or painting or speech or whatever, men tend to over-react, becoming furious. It is because even a small criticism is an attack on the entire psychological system whereby men maintain what they like to think of as their superiority.

This, maybe, is one explanation for the otherwise incomprehensible anger of so many men against women.

Her aunt’s legacy

Then Woolf shares something profound and central to the book and its famous central thesis (‘A woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction.’)

Around the time (some) women were given the vote (the Representation of the People Act, February 1918) Woolf inherited a legacy from an aunt. It paid £500 a year in perpetuity. Woolf is interesting when she describes how this changed her whole view of the world. Until then she’d had to scrabble for an income via all kinds of menial reviewing jobs, almost all controlled and doled out by men. Now she no longer had to flatter or fear men. She slowly realised that she was completely liberated. Slowly this caused her to reconsider lots of things in society, starting with war itself, all the statues and guff about glory and so on. So much of it seemed like men justifying male behaviour.

The protected sex

The section ends with a new thought, that women have for centuries been ‘the protected sex’. What will happen when the social transformations of the 1920s work their way through, when women are allowed or encouraged to do any job, when women cease to be ‘the protected sex’? Who knows, maybe the fact that women, on average, live longer than men will itself change.

All assumptions founded on the facts observed when women were the protected sex will have disappeared – as, for example (here a squad of soldiers marched down the street), that women and clergymen and gardeners live longer than other people. Remove that protection, expose them to the same exertions and activities, make them soldiers and sailors and engine-drivers and dock labourers, and will not women die off so much younger, so much quicker, than men?

In the event, no. Women have for some decades being doing more and more of the jobs previously restricted to men, but it hasn’t dented the fundamental gender gap in life expectancy.

Life expectancy at birth in the UK in 2020 to 2022 was 78.6 years for males and 82.6 years for females. (Office for National Statistics)

Section 3. Women in history and literature (14 pages)

So she has gotten round to opening up some pretty massive issues (the patriarchy, male control, male anger, male jobs, social and economic changes of the 1920s).

The next section presents, on the face of it, another disappointment. Rather than dig deeper into these sociological issues, it feels like Woolf retreats to her comfort zone to talk about literature. To be precise, her focus suddenly shifts to the question of why there were no women writers during the Golden Age of Queen Elizabeth I?

Powerless in society, powerful in literature

To do so she makes a quick review of women in the literature of the ages and points out the paradox that, although throughout most of history women have been slaves and drudges, pawns in family marriages, entirely at the beck and call of fathers and husbands… yet the classic literature of the ages, all written by men, is thronged with women of dazzling power and agency, from the heroines of the Greek epics and tragedies, through Cleopatra and the strong women of Rome, through the leading figures in Shakespeare, Lady Macbeth, Viola, Portia. Why did societies which fiercely policed and repressed women (for example, ancient Greece) produce toweringly powerful figures of women in literature, poetry and plays?

Woolf relies heavily on the experts of her day and quotes the historian G.M. Trevelyan (1876 to 1962) and the classicist F.L. Lucas (1894 to 1967). It is instructive reading their prose next to hers i.e. theirs is full of intellectual meat and interesting views, whereas hers are much weaker, relying much more on poetic impressions of, for example, characters like Cleopatra, Lady Macbeth and Rosalind. The paradox of Greek women which I just summarised, in fact derives entirely from a man, Lucas.

Lack of knowledge of women in history

Still, she makes one Massive Point: this is that there is a pitiful absence of information about women’s lives before the eighteenth century. She directly addresses her audience of bright young women undergraduates at Girton and asks if none of them can devote their lives to the historical study of women’s lives. It would be fascinating to know if anyone in her audience (or who later read the book) was inspired to do just that.

A joke

Woolf’s works are conspicuous for their almost total lack of humour. There are few if any laughs in ‘Jacob’s Room’, ‘Mrs Dalloway’, ‘To The Lighthouse’, a humorous tone but no actual jokes in ‘Orlando’, and none in ‘The Waves’. She certainly never tells jokes with a witty punchline or outcome, just as she never tells ‘stories’. I’m not saying it’s easy. That’s why really successful comic writers are few and far between. So when something funny crops up it’s worth recording. This made me laugh out loud.

I thought of that old gentleman, who is dead now, but was a bishop, I think, who declared that it was impossible for any woman, past, present, or to come, to have the genius of Shakespeare. He wrote to the papers about it. He also told a lady who applied to him for information that cats do not as a matter of fact go to heaven, though they have, he added, souls of a sort. How much thinking those old gentlemen used to save one! How the borders of ignorance shrank back at their approach! Cats do not go to heaven. Women cannot write the plays of Shakespeare.

Shakespeare’s sister

Anyway, back to the central theme of this section which is the question why there are no women writers from the Golden Age of Elizabethan Literature.

To sketch an answer Woolf rather brilliantly invents a sister for Shakespeare, named Judith, and wonders what her life would have been like. In a nutshell, repressed and stifled at every turn, not sent to school, mocked by her parents, fleeing a loveless engagement by running away to London, where nobody would hire her as an actor let alone a playwright, she ended up becoming mistress to the theatre owner and, driven mad by frustration, killing herself.

How many thousands of other women, born with sparkling gifts and epic potential, Woolf asks, found themselves similarly stifled?

Whenever one reads of a witch being ducked, of a woman possessed by devils, of a wise woman selling herbs, or even of a very remarkable man who had a mother, then I think we are on the track of a lost novelist, a suppressed poet, of some mute and inglorious Jane Austen, some Emily Brontë who dashed her brains out on the moor or mopped and mowed about the highways crazed with the torture that her gift had put her to.

She suggests that many of the poems which have come down to us attributed to ‘Anon’ might well have been written by women given no admittance into the male domain of writing.

Having to use a man’s name

Even into the 19th century it lasted, with authors as big as Currer Bell (Charlotte Brontë), George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans), George Sand (Amantine-Lucile-Aurore Dudevant) being forced to pretend to be men.

Hard for men, impossible for women

Woolf goes on to describe the way that, since the time of Rousseau and his famous Confessions (1782) we have had more and more autobiographies and biographies and editions of the letters of great writers, and if one thing comes over it is how very hard it is to write a masterpiece.

But if hard for men, then impossible for women, who faced a barrage of opposition from everyone they knew, plus from their own personal doubts and hesitations. Any woman foolish enough to try and write was likely to be ‘snubbed, slapped, lectured and exhorted’ and she cites some mind-bogglingly sexist put-downs of women from the likes of Dr Johnson to Oscar Browning to even Desmond McCarthy, a friend of hers.

The history of men’s opposition to women’s emancipation is more interesting perhaps than the story of that emancipation itself.

Shakespeare had no psychological blockers

The thrust of this section is that Shakespeare was so complete a poet in part because he seems to have had no obstacles to encumber his self expression, obviously a debatable theory. She applies it to the many men we know who did struggle to find a room of their own, financial independence, acknowledgement and encouragement, to explain why even their work was often botched and compromised. And then applies the same theory to the majority of women writers, many of whom (she speculates) never got to write a thing, due to the lack of opportunities, the lack of education, and their asphyxiation by a life of endless childbirth, child-rearing, housework and husband tending.

Section 4. Historical women writers (19 pages)

Section 4 continues on where the last section left off, to give half a dozen quotes from the poet Ann Finch, Lady Winchelsea (1661 to 1720) which demonstrate how angry she was at the way women were mocked and held back in her day. Woolf’s point being that this is precisely the kind of psychological snag, the bitterness and resentment, which prevented many women’s self-expression being pure and complete, as in the hypothetical model of Shakespeare’s mind, pure and unblemished by doubt or resentment (in her theory/model).

Woolf goes on to lament that the voluminous writings of Margaret of Newcastle (1623 to 1673), who was never given the education, discipline or support, deteriorated into long rants and screeds. Then she moves on to praise the letters of Dorothy Osborne (1627 to 1695).

Aphra Behn

Next she moves on to (very briefly) discuss the career of Aphra Behn (1640 to 1689), by which point I’d realised that all this is by way of being a pocket review of the earliest English woman authors (it would be nice of this had been explained but rational structuring, ordering and introducing of her material is not, as we’ve seen, Woolf’s strong point).

Behn changed the rules of the game by making a successful living as a woman writer. She could be used as an example by the aspiring women writers of subsequent generations.

All women together ought to let flowers fall upon the tomb of Aphra Behn, which is, most scandalously but rather appropriately, in Westminster Abbey, for it was she who earned them the right to speak their mind.

And so, skipping ahead a bit, by the middle of the eighteenth century there were lots of women authors, churning out bad novels, unreadable poetry and thousands of essays about Shakespeare.

The advent of middle-class women authors

Woolf then alights on another key turning point: at the turn of the nineteenth century, middle class women began to write and she swiftly moves on to consider the Big Four, being: Jane Austen, Charlotte and Emily Bronte, and George Eliot.

Why did they all write novels, when the original motivator for literature was poetry? Because they all lived in the early nineteenth century drawing room, which was a kind of laboratory of character and conversation. Often they had no room of their own (aha) and so actually wrote in the communal living space, in the company of siblings and family and even visitors and guests.

Jane Austen’s perfection

Then she comes back to her theory of the lack of internal, mental, psychological blockage, especially regarding Austen. The anger and bitterness she finds in the 17th century women poets was entirely absent in Jane Austen.

Here was a woman about the year 1800 writing without hate, without bitterness, without fear, without protest, without preaching. That was how Shakespeare wrote, I thought, looking at ‘Antony and Cleopatra’; and when people compare Shakespeare and Jane Austen, they may mean that the minds of both had consumed all impediments; and for that reason we do not know Jane Austen and we do not know Shakespeare, and for that reason Jane Austen pervades every word that she wrote, and so does Shakespeare… Her gift and her circumstances matched each other completely.

Woolf compares Austen with Charlotte Bronte’s character, the governess Jane Eyre, who feels restless and confined and frustrated at wanting to live a larger life, and uses quotes from ‘Jane Eyre’ to indicate the pitiful limitations of these women’s lives.

All those good novels, Villette, Emma, Wuthering Heights, Middlemarch, were written by women without more experience of life than could enter the house of a respectable clergyman; written too in the common sitting-room of that respectable house and by women so poor that they could not afford to buy more than a few quires of paper at a time.

When put like that, it’s an amazing achievement. Woolf contrasts the pitifully restricted domestic experience of George Eliot with the florid adventures in life and love of the young Leo Tolstoy who, as a man, was free to travel widely, join the army, take up any profession. No wonder her (wonderful) novels are so constrained while his encompass the whole world.

Deferring to male values

Woolf makes an interesting point when she says that in so many of these women writers you can feel the subtle or not-so-subtle deferral to male values. Women writers feel they have to justify their subject matter because they are writing about ‘women’s matters’ in a world ruled by patriarchal values and judgements.

It is obvious that the values of women differ very often from the values which have been made by the other sex… yet it is the masculine values that prevail. Speaking crudely, football and sport are ‘important’; the worship of fashion, the buying of clothes ‘trivial’. And these values are inevitably transferred from life to fiction. This is an important book, the critic assumes, because it deals with war. This is an insignificant book because it deals with the feelings of women in a drawing-room. A scene in a battle-field is more important than a scene in a shop — everywhere and much more subtly the difference of value persists.

The whole structure, therefore, of the early nineteenth-century novel was raised, if one was a woman, by a mind which was slightly pulled from the straight, and made to alter its clear vision in deference to external authority. One has only to skim those old forgotten novels and listen to the tone of voice in which they are written to divine that the writer was meeting criticism; she was saying this by way of aggression, or that by way of conciliation. She was admitting that she was ‘only a woman’, or protesting that she was ‘as good as a man’. She met that criticism as her temperament dictated, with docility and diffidence, or with anger and emphasis. It does not matter which it was; she was thinking of something other than the thing itself… She had altered her values in deference to the opinion of others.

Fascinating. A really important insight. All the more impressive the achievement of Jane Austen and Emily Brontë to write as women write, without fear or favour or excusing themselves to men and their male values.

Male and female traditions

Then she devotes a few pages to the idea that male writers have a long tradition of male writers to fall back upon. Not just subjects and treatment but the flow of individual sentences. She quotes a sentence from the early nineteenth century and declares it a man’s sentence, with the weighty rhythms of male concerns. Then says this kind of heavy style was wholly inappropriate for women and what they wanted to say.

Lamb, Browne, Thackeray, Newman, Sterne, Dickens, De Quincey – whoever it may be – never helped a woman yet, though she may have learnt a few tricks of them and adapted them to her use. The weight, the pace, the stride of a man’s mind are too unlike her own for her to lift anything substantial from him successfully

In this respect, Jane Austen perfected sentences for women, ‘devised a perfectly natural, shapely sentence proper for her own use and never departed from it’ which explains why, though she had less genius for writing than Charlotte Brontë, she got infinitely more said.

Shorter books for women?

In the last paragraph of this section she speculates about women’s fiction of the future (much as she speculated about the death gender gap, earlier), and wonders whether women don’t require shorter books than men.

The book has somehow to be adapted to the body, and at a venture one would say that women’s books should be shorter, more concentrated, than those of men, and framed so that they do not need long hours of steady and uninterrupted work. For interruptions there will always be.

Section 5. Mary Carmichael (14 pages)

Mary Carmichael

The most striking feature of Woolf’s day is that women now write as much as men (or nearly) and upon an equally wide range of subject matter. She takes down from her shelf (ostensibly at random, which is her wont) a bang up-to-date novel, Life’s Adventure, or some such title, by Mary Carmichael. (The notes tell me that Mary Carmichael was a pen-name used by the family planning i.e. contraception campaigner, Marie Stopes (1880 to 1958).

At first she considers her style, which is thorny, unlike the flowing Jane Austen. Then the subject matter which she finds interrupted. But then she comes across a sentence which hits her like a hammer, ‘Chloe liked Olivia…’ and this triggers the thoughts which fill the rest of the section. For Woolf reflects how often women, in fiction by both men and women, are defined primarily by contrast with men. The notion that this novel will consider the secret and special tone of friendship between women strikes Woolf as opening a major new epoch in fiction. How much men’s fictions concern deep friendships between men, close bonding going back to classical times (Achilles and Patroclus). How very few are the works which have tackled the subject of friendship between women.

Women’s creativity

Woolf asserts that women have a special type of creativity. Literature has been greatly impoverished for rejecting and ignoring it. As testimony witness the many Great Men who have freely admitted the need of women’s company, the company of wives or close women friends, in order to shed a different perspective on their thoughts and endeavours, to refresh and renew them (she singles out Dr Johnson’s friendship with Hester Thrale).

Women have been trapped indoors by so many societies that interiors, rooms, have a special feminine power undetectable by men.

Departing a little from conventional feminism, maybe, she says it would be a great pity if modern women just started writing like men. It is vital that women maintain their difference.

It would be a thousand pities if women wrote like men, or lived like men, or looked like men, for if two sexes are quite inadequate, considering the vastness and variety of the world, how should we manage with one only? Ought not education to bring out and fortify the differences rather than the similarities? For we have too much likeness as it is…

Women writers like Mary Carmichael should not only record the obscure lives of lower middle class and working women, they also have large scope on reporting on the deficiencies of men. God knows men have been writing libels about women’s imperfections for millennia. Now, with more women writers than ever before, freed to write more candidly than ever before, about the strangeness and peculiarity of men.

The result is bound to be amazingly interesting. Comedy is bound to be enriched. New facts are bound to be discovered.

Woolf concludes, rather patronisingly, that given a room of her own and £500 a year, Mary Carmichael might, in another hundred years, be a decent writer.

Section 6. (17 pages)

Out the window

The pressure drops off. Woolf reverts to her fiction manner. She looks out of the window at busy London and marvels that none of the passersby gave any indication of caring for the plays of Shakespeare or the future of women’s novels. Moments like this make you think very badly of Woolf. She comes across as a simpleton. In the manner of her novels she observes different people doing things and invests them with tremendous significance as if that, just doing that, is the same as writing a story or narrative. When she writes:

The mind is certainly a very mysterious organ, I reflected, drawing my head in from the window, about which nothing whatever is known, though we depend upon it so completely

I felt pity for her shallowness, for her uneducated, unintellectual falling-back on the lamest clichés.

Male and female parts of the mind

She watches a couple meet on the corner of her street and get into a taxi. This leads to a sequence of doodling and pondering in which she wonders whether all of us have a male part and a female part of our minds and that we are at our best when they are integrated and in balance. This echoes Freud’s theory of the fundamental bisexuality of the psyche and Jung’s theories of the ‘anima’ or feminine aspects within a man and the ‘animus’ or masculine aspects within a woman, meaning that every individual contains both masculine and feminine qualities within their unconscious mind, regardless of their gender. Except that both of them were professional psychologists and Woolf is a writer looking out a window and having some random thoughts.

Characteristically, her mind goes to Shakespeare, her go-to author in every situation, who she praises for being genuinely androgynous, containing what she calls the man-womanly and the woman-manly equally.

She makes the rather startling claims that ‘No age can ever have been as stridently sex-conscious as our own’ and blames it on the suffragettes whose sustained campaign against the patriarchy forced millions of men to reflect on their masculinity and rush to defend it.

Masculine writing

She takes down a book written by a contemporary male author and finds it a relief after living with women writers for the past few weeks:

It was delightful to read a man’s writing again. It was so direct, so straightforward after the writing of women. It indicated such freedom of mind, such liberty of person, such confidence in himself. One had a sense of physical well-being in the presence of this well-nourished, well-educated, free mind, which had never been thwarted or opposed, but had had full liberty from birth to stretch itself in whatever way it liked.

But then she slowly realises she doesn’t like something about it. It is the tone of strident self-assertion. He uses ‘I’ at absurd length. The women’s movement has triggered a counter-reaction.

The limitations of modern masculine writing

And she develops this further by considering the writing of Rudyard Kipling and John Galsworthy. The sex awareness she mentioned a moment ago, this means that these modern writers write with just the male part of their minds.

Virility has now become self-conscious—men, that is to say, are now writing only with the male side of their brains. It is a mistake for a woman to read them, for she will inevitably look for something that she will not find.

Shakespeare, Coleridge, they wrote out of a type of mental androgyny: their writings feed both sexes. Modern male writers have become sex-aware and polemically masculine and so their writings leave the female reader cold.

It is not only that they celebrate male virtues, enforce male values and describe the world of men; it is that the emotion with which these books are permeated is to a woman incomprehensible… all their qualities seem to a woman, if one may generalize, crude and immature.

Fascism

In a surprising move – because her works give so little sense of being aware of the wider world, the world outside her privileged flow of sensations and impressions – she suddenly mentions Fascist Italy. In her place and time, October 1928, Fascist Italy is an absurd over-exaggeration of the masculine. It seems like a mad over-reaction to the (relative) modern liberation of women: ‘For one can hardly fail to be impressed in Rome by the sense of unmitigated masculinity.’

A balance

The best writers balance the gender elements in the mind, are man-womanly or woman-manly, approach a state of androgyny.

One must turn back to Shakespeare then, for Shakespeare was androgynous; and so were Keats and Sterne and Cowper and Lamb and Coleridge. Shelley perhaps was sexless. Milton and Ben Jonson had a dash too much of the male in them. So had Wordsworth and Tolstoi. In our time Proust was wholly androgynous, if not perhaps a little too much of a woman.

As you can see, this suffers, like so much older writing about gender, from the kind of essentialism which later feminists like Simone de Beauvoir criticised. Gender essentialism is:

‘the belief that gender is a biological, innate, and unchangeable quality that determines how men and women behave. It’s based on the idea that there are distinct qualities that make men and women different, that women are naturally caring and maternal while men are naturally aggressive and competitive.’

By basing so much of her critique on a very basic belief in masculine and feminine parts of the mind Woolf is, by definition, employing gender stereotypes which more contemporary feminists would (I think) reject.

Coda: addressing criticisms

That’s it. Her presentation is over. She hopes she’s achieved her aim of demonstrating why, in order to write freely, a woman needs an income of £500 a year and a room of her own, preferably one with a lock. She anticipates criticisms:

1. Is she going to appraise the relative merits of male writers and female writers? No. Nothing could be more puerile or pointless.

So long as you write what you wish to write, that is all that matters; and whether it matters for ages or only for hours, nobody can say.

2. Isn’t she being too materialistic with this emphasis on £500 a day? Isn’t the great artist or poet happy to be penniless? No. This also is a puerile delusion. Intellectual achievement depends on financial independence, always has, always ill. Which is also why there have been so few women writers. Because so few women have had the material independence which permitted intellectual achievement.

3. Why this focus on fiction, it sounds hard to write and profoundly unrewarding? This is correct. She advises her audience of young women to write about anything.

I am by no means confining you to fiction. If you would please me—and there are thousands like me—you would write books of travel and adventure, and research and scholarship, and history and biography, and criticism and philosophy and science. By so doing you will certainly profit the art of fiction. For books have a way of influencing each other. Fiction will be much the better for standing cheek by jowl with poetry and philosophy. Moreover, if you consider any great figure of the past, like Sappho, like the Lady Murasaki, like Emily Brontë, you will find that she is an inheritor as well as an originator, and has come into existence because women have come to have the habit of writing naturally; so that even as a prelude to poetry such activity on your part would be invaluable.

All women’s writing, on any topic, supports and enables all other women’s writing. As to the future, be yourselves.

It is much more important to be oneself than anything else.


Thoughts

My main impression from reading Woolf’s long-winded and cumbersome historical entertainment, ‘Orlando’, was the way Woolf completely avoided discussion or even mention of all the political, cultural, economic, social, religious, scientific and technological controversies, discoveries and developments which took place during the 340 or so years which the narrative covers. Instead she fills page after page with her protagonist’s vapourings about love, love and poetry, poetry and truth, poetry and love, truth and love, until you want to bang your head against a brick wall.

On the handful of occasions when she tried to address even subjects close to her own heart, like the literary achievements of the Elizabethan poets (Shakespeare, Marlowe) or the Augustans (Dryden, Pope, Swift) Woolf demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that she had absolutely nothing of any interest to say about any of them. I was, frankly, astonished that this long book, which I’d read so many proud claims about for decades, turned out to be such an intellectual desert. Surely she can do better than this, I thought.

‘A Room of One’s Own’ proves that she could, up to a point. Summaries of the book’s main points don’t really convey the reading experience, which is of being subjected to Woolf’s deliberate whimsy, digression and lack of direction. On one level this book is a long admission of her own intellectual incapacity, epitomise by the ‘scene’ in the British Museum, which reads more like a scene from a novel than any attempt at intellectual research.

It was impossible to make head or tail of it all, I decided, glancing with envy at the reader next door who was making the neatest abstracts, headed often with an A or a B or a C, while my own notebook rioted with the wildest scribble of contradictory jottings. It was distressing, it was bewildering, it was humiliating. Truth had run through my fingers. Every drop had escaped.

So far so strange and clumsy. But once she starts considering the role of the woman writer in history, Woolf suddenly starts making a steady stream of interesting and useful insights. ‘Orlando’ suggested she couldn’t think her way out of a paper bag but this long essay shows that she can… just not in the traditional logical, and maybe ‘male’, style which you might expect.

Then again maybe, just maybe, that is one of her points. She describes Jane Austen as finding the right style for what she wanted to say by simply ignoring the style and weight and rhythms of the male writers who’d come before her. When she says things like that, it’s tempting to think that Woolf was (as usual in her essays) also describing herself – suffering from a lack of education which wasn’t her fault, wounded by the countless rejections and denigrations she had received in her own writing career, battling through to a position where she felt confident sharing her own ideas and perceptions, memories and impressions in her own way, unintimidated by the demands of an aggressively rational, logical patriarchy.

So maybe my negative response to the whimsical indirection of the opening section simply proves that I’m on the opposite team and not sufficiently feminine enough to really grasp the alternative, woman’s way of thinking and perceiving, which Woolf was deliberately and consciously creating. Maybe. As so often with Woolf, you’re left with a kind of teasing ambivalence.

London

As in so many of Woolf’s writings, descriptions of London punctuate the text. As a Londoner, I find descriptions of London endlessly fascinating, for the light they shed on what has changed and what remains the same.

The day, though not actually wet, was dismal, and the streets in the neighbourhood of the Museum were full of open coal-holes, down which sacks were showering; four-wheeled cabs were drawing up and depositing on the pavement corded boxes containing, presumably, the entire wardrobe of some Swiss or Italian family seeking fortune or refuge or some other desirable commodity which is to be found in the boarding-houses of Bloomsbury in the winter. The usual hoarse-voiced men paraded the streets with plants on barrows. Some shouted; others sang. London was like a workshop. London was like a machine.

Windows

Maybe it’s whimsical and inconsequential of me but I can’t help noticing, as I have in the last few Woolf books I’ve read, that her characteristic gesture is to have her characters get up and look out the window. In a book like ‘Jacob’s Room’ this is to escape the sensory overload which comes from engaging with other people. In a more relaxed book like this one, it symbolises dreaminess, pondering, relaxing the mind and letting it drift.

Thus after lunch she sits in the window seat of the college looking into the quad; after dinner she stands at the window and looks out over the domes and towers of Cambridge; the day after visiting the British Museum she looks out the window at the busy streets of London; and then looks out her window on 26 October 1928 and sees the couple get into a taxi.

Daydreaming, pondering, drifting, observing, a woman looking out a window is the stock, standard, emblematic image of Woolf’s work. In fact it becomes such an obvious recurring image that I’ve written a separate blog post about it.

A personal view on the subject

I think it’s unwise to generalise about men or women (or gays or Blacks or any other demographic group). Nowadays, if you blithely stated that ‘All Chinese people are x’, ‘All Black people are y’ or ‘All Muslims are z’, you would get into trouble and might be prosecuted. Anybody writing ‘All women are this’ or ‘All women like that’ or ‘All women do the other’ is likely to get into similar trouble.

My experience, after reading thousands of books, many of them stuffed with misogynist attitudes and sexist tropes, and taking part in endless conversations on the subject, is to back off and leave the whole subject well alone. There is no victory in these kinds of conversations, you can only make yourself look stupid or bigoted. Rarely is the subject discussed dispassionately, with the use of reliable evidence and data; more often people just vent their opinions, prejudices and bigotries on whatever side of the argument they stand. Rarely does the argument end well; more usually all sides dismiss the others as bores, bigots or worse.

Therefore I think we should treat people, and think about people, as individuals, regardless of their ethnicity or gender. I try to take people as they come, assess them as I find them, without prejudging anyone. Some generalisations about groups or concepts is unavoidable in studying and discussing societies and history. But the optimum approach is to restrict yourself to specific, well-defined groups and use only clear and well-defined data. The alternative is the poisonous hatreds into which so much gender-based discourse has now descended, and which I’m trying my best to avoid.


Credit

‘A Room of One’s Own by Virginia Woolf was first published by the Hogarth Press in 1929. Page references are to the 1977 Granada paperback edition, although the text is easily available online.

Related links

Related reviews

The History of Mr Polly by H.G. Wells (1910)

A weakly wilful being struggling to get obdurate things round impossible corners—in that symbol Mr. Polly could recognise himself and all the trouble of humanity.
(Mr Polly remembers his poor father, page 57)

This is a hugely enjoyable comic novel, by far the best of Wells’s social comedies, full of brilliantly observed details, shrewd psychology and comic reversals, all told in a high good humour. I smiled continually and laughed out loud often, and read it in one highly entertaining day.

‘Mr Polly’ is often considered the last of Well’s social comedies, a series which had begun ten years earlier with ‘Love and Mr Lewisham’ in 1900. He wrote loads more novels over the remaining 35 years of his life, but they are considered ‘novels of ideas’ and tend to thin characterisation and a journalistic approach to Big Issues of the Day. ‘Polly’ is considered the last one to have a twinkle in its eye and smile with gentle humour. It is written throughout with the charming facetious tone which was so common at the time (compare Kipling’s arch attitude towards his characters).

It’s also one more of the novels in which Wells recycled his own poor upbringing and his time apprenticed to a shopkeeper (the fate of the protagonists of Kipps and Tono-Bungay).

The narrative kicks off by telling us that Mr Polly is 37-and-a-half and runs a small gentleman’s outfitters in Fishbourne High Street which is slowly going bankrupt. He is dim, lacking education and any self-awareness. He is a martyr to bad digestion which often leads to bad moods which he takes out on his long-suffering wife.

After just a few pages of this, the story then flashes back to Polly’s early life to explain how he got to this position. It briskly describes his lamentably shoddy education, incidentally indicating why, well before 1900, Germany and America were overtaking Britain in industrial output – because they educated their workforces.

He went for some time to a National School, which was run on severely economical lines to keep down the rates by a largely untrained staff, he was set sums to do that he did not understand, and that no one made him understand, he was made to read the catechism and Bible with the utmost industry and an entire disregard of punctuation or significance, and caused to imitate writing copies and drawing copies, and given object lessons upon sealing wax and silk-worms and potato bugs and ginger and iron and such like things, and taught various other subjects his mind refused to entertain, and afterwards, when he was about twelve, he was jerked by his parent to “finish off” in a private school of dingy aspect and still dingier pretensions, where there were no object lessons, and the studies of book-keeping and French were pursued (but never effectually overtaken) under the guidance of an elderly gentleman who wore a nondescript gown and took snuff, wrote copperplate, explained nothing, and used a cane with remarkable dexterity and gusto.

(cf the focus and efficiency of American tourists he notices, later, working in a shop in Canterbury, p.51.)

Then his father packs him off to become an apprentice at a haberdasher’s emporium, exactly the same as Kipps (very samey, Well’s social comedies, very based on his own autobiography). Kipps’s emporium was situated in Folkestone, Polly’s one is in Port Burdock, a thinly veiled version of Portsmouth.

He falls in with two fellow indentures, Platt and Parsons, who christen themselves the Three Ps and consider themselves very daring blades and devils, frequenting the local pubs, bravely chatting up young women, going for outings as far afield as Windsor (!), referring to each other as ‘O’ man’.

There’s bucolic descriptions of the south England countryside with idyllic accounts of hearty meals at wayside taverns etc. It’s on one of these outings that they visit the little town of Fishbourne and Platt remarks on it being a nice little place to set up a business, a remark which sticks in Polly’s mind.

Polly is a voracious if uncritical reader (Chaucer, Rabelais, Shakespeare) and develops a completely uneducated enthusiasm for words which he frequently mispronounces and misunderstands. This becomes a comic running thread:

He specialised in slang and the disuse of English, and he played the rôle of an appreciative stimulant to Parsons. Words attracted him curiously, words rich in suggestion, and he loved a novel and striking phrase. His school training had given him little or no mastery of the mysterious pronunciation of English and no confidence in himself. His schoolmaster indeed had been both unsound and variable. New words had terror and fascination for him; he did not acquire them, he could not avoid them, and so he plunged into them. His only rule was not to be misled by the spelling. That was no guide anyhow. He avoided every recognised phrase in the language and mispronounced everything in order that he shouldn’t be suspected of ignorance, but whim.
‘Sesquippledan,’ he would say. ‘Sesquippledan verboojuice.’
‘Eh?’ said Platt.
‘Eloquent Rapsodooce.’

‘Exultant, Urgent Loogoobuosity.’

‘Smart Juniors,’ said Polly to himself, ‘full of Smart Juniosity. The Shoveacious Cult.’

Mr. Polly returned slowly and thoughtfully to the inn, and suddenly his mind began to bubble with phrases…’I put him in the river,’ said Mr. Polly. ‘That toned down his alcolaceous frenzy!’

‘I’m going to absquatulate, see? Hey Presto! right away.’

‘I’ve always been the skeptaceous sort…’

These inappropriate neologisms often pop into Polly’s head at precisely the wrong moment. The narrator describes them as the product of ‘the insubordinate phrasemaker’ and ‘uncontrollable phrasemonger’ beavering away in the back of his mind, and you suspect Wells might have suffered from the same problem, a fatal facetiousness (p.48).

(This playing with the semi-literate’s misunderstandings of language(s) reminds of Wells gently mocking Uncle Edward and Aunt Susan in Tono-Bungay for their attempts to become ‘O Fay’ with the French language. But it’s sympathetic mockery, gently raillery.)

Anyway, Polly insists on a pay rise which the owner of the Burdock emporium refuses so he leaves and goes up to London, to hang around employment agencies (notably the one in Wood Street near St Paul’s) and hold a whole series of positions for short periods. His favourite job is down in Canterbury where he loves the cathedral and cloisters, if the accommodation was gloomy and the hours long.

Polly’s father dies and the funeral provides an extended comic-sympathetic chapter. The funeral is arranged by a cousin, Mr Harold Johnson and his pushy wife, at his father’s last residence, in Easewood west of London. Johnson is a signaller at a signal junction and the dozen or so guests are all very lower middle-class, fussing and fretting and shrieking with laughter, a milieu Wells captures with frenetic fondness, ‘Ooh, ‘ark at you’, ‘Oh I never did’, ‘Lor you are a treat’, shrieking with laughter at anything.

It’s at the funeral that he meets three jolly daughters of Aunt Larkins. Morose old Uncle Pentstemon maliciously points out that Aunt L makes a living through letting lodgers and charring and her three pretty daughters work in a factory, but Polly’s head swirls with their kissing hello and petting and shrieking at everything he says. They are literary descendants of Jane Austen’s eligible young ladies looking for a husband because it hasn’t escaped their notice that Polly has inherited money from his father, although a preliminary conversation with Johnson reveals that he hasn’t a clue what to do with it.

(Incidentally, it’s only during the funeral and wake that we learn that Polly’s given name is Alfred or ‘Elfred’ as the shrieking Larkins sisters insist on calling him.)

Polly forgot to notify his current employers that he would be gone for a few days and so is promptly dismissed. He ponders all kinds of ideas for a holiday but in the end returns to Easewood and takes up lodgings with the Johnsons. He buys a bicycle and learns to ride it. One of his first outings is to the nearby suburb of Stamton which just happens to be home to the Larkins family. They live in a dingy terrace house in a dingy street and Miriam opens the door with her sleeves pushed up, obviously in the middle of housework.

It becomes a regular venue and he becomes a bit schizophrenic, at cousin Johnson’s house having earnest discussions about either finding a new position or investing his inheritance in the little corner shops which Johnson’s pushing on him, but in secret enjoying cycling off each day to visit the Larkins women.

However one day something new happens. For a change he cycles a different route, south, and is taking a breather by a wall when to his astonishment a girl climbs over it from the other side and sits astride it. Turns out to be a wall enclosing a boarding school and she’s a bit of a rebel. Now, Polly has a ready wit and they instantly hit it off, him pretending to be a knight in shining armour (well, his bicycle has metal plating) and she a damsel in distress. They both take this witty conceit forward and laugh and enjoy each other’s company till the sound of a gong announces it’s time for her to run off to dinner.

For ten days they meet up, Christabel (her name) remaining on the wall looking down at him, and Polly falls deeply hopelessly in love with her, his soul and body suddenly shaken by fantastic longings. But she’s just a schoolgirl and she tells her friends who start coming along to the meetings and giggling and pinching each other on the other side of the wall, puncturing all Romance, making him realise she’s just an immature giggling schoolgirl. It’s an odd interlude.

On the rebound he goes back to the Larkins households and finds their amiable lack of pretension reassuring. There’s a brilliant scene where Polly is left alone for a moment with Minnie Larkins and what starts as banter gets perilously close to him hinting at a proposal, he finds his heart racing and blood pounding so hard he can’t hear himself but still pushes the flirtation further and only at the very last minute manages to stand and make up a diversion about a dog chewing his bicycle tyre and run out of the room and save himself. Wells is very good at the scenes, of conveying tension through dialogue.

Miriam

Alas, all good things come to an end and – as in Love and Mr Lewisham and Kipps and Tono-Bungay – once again the protagonist throws his prospects away and ruins his life by marrying the wrong woman. Once again, the immature protagonist deludes himself into thinking his fiancée is an epitome of femininity and womanhood and romance when in fact, in the case of Miriam Larkins, she is a narrow, pinched, skinny, flat-chested slavey of limited horizons. As to physique, on the sunny afternoon when Miriam really penetrates Polly’s affections:

the blue tones of her old dress brought out a certain warmth in her skin, and her pose exaggerated whatever was feminine in her rather lean and insufficient body, and rounded her flat chest delusively.

He goes for a walk with Miriam to the recreation ground and the sunlight and children playing and flowers in bloom and her delusive figure and him being on the rebound from romantic fantasies about the schoolgirl…well, it’s another brilliant scene where Polly finds himself proposing although he really doesn’t mean to, and is overcome not with joy when she says yes, but rising panic, but…it’s too late.

Oh dear. The lovely unbridled comedy of the first 100 pages grinds to a halt and we are back in Wells’s Unhappy Marriage trope.

At the same time the stocks he’s invested in lose value and he realises his holiday time has come to a close and he needs to make a decision about the corner shop. So he has a long evening conversation with Johnson who’s soberly done all the calculations for him and reckons he’ll just about make a go of it. But Johnson is shocked to learn Polly is engaged to Miriam.

Miriam and marriage

Polly lies awake at night suddenly feeling trapped. His thoughts become so bleak he sometimes contemplates suicide. It stops being funny or becomes a more complicated flavour of funny. One day he packs a light bag and cycles off to Fishbourne, remembered from that legendary walk with the 3 Ps, and returns a few days later to tell a shocked Johnson that he’s taken a shop in Fishbourne. Mrs Johnson is furious that her husband has put so much effort into helping Polly who has turned his back on them, run off and done a deal elsewhere and she’s right to be furious.

The wedding is a sad affair. Polly hangs around pondering running away again. Actually Wells pulls off a great comic scene in his depiction of the bored vicar running through the ceremony he’s done hundreds of times, worth quoting in full for the rhythm and accumulating comedy.

The officiating clergy sighed deeply, began, and married them wearily and without any hitch.

‘D’b’loved, we gath’d ’gether sight o’ Gard ’n face this con’gation join ’gather Man, Worn’ Holy Mat’my which is on’bl state stooted by Gard in times man’s innocency…’

Mr. Polly’s thoughts wandered wide and far, and once again something like a cold hand touched his heart, and he saw a sweet face in sunshine under the shadow of trees. Someone was nudging him. It was Johnson’s finger diverting his eyes to the crucial place in the prayer-book to which they had come.

‘Wiltou lover, cumfer, oner, keeper sickness and health…’

‘Say ‘I will.’’

Mr. Polly moistened his lips. ‘I will,’ he said hoarsely.

Miriam, nearly inaudible, answered some similar demand. Then the clergyman said: ‘Who gifs Worn married to this man?’

‘Well, I’m doing that,’ said Mr. Voules in a refreshingly full voice and looking round the church. ‘You see, me and Martha Larkins being cousins –’

He was silenced by the clergyman’s rapid grip directing the exchange of hands.

‘Pete arf me,’ said the clergyman to Mr. Polly. ‘Take thee Mirum wed wife—’

‘Take thee Mirum wed’ wife,’ said Mr. Polly.

‘Have hold this day ford.’

‘Have hold this day ford.’

‘Betworse, richpoo’—’

‘Bet worsh, richpoo’….’

Then came Miriam’s turn.

‘Lego hands,’ said the clergyman; ‘got the ring? No! On the book. So! Here! Pete arf me, ‘withis ring Ivy wed.’’

‘Withis ring Ivy wed—’

So it went on, blurred and hurried, like the momentary vision of an utterly beautiful thing seen through the smoke of a passing train…

‘Now, my boy,’ said Mr. Voules at last, gripping Mr. Polly’s elbow tightly, ‘you’ve got to sign the registry, and there you are! Done!’

Before him stood Miriam, a little stiffly, the hat with a slight rake across her forehead, and a kind of questioning hesitation in her face. Mr. Voules urged him past her.

It was astounding. She was his wife! (p.111)

And it made me laugh to read about the little posse of girls and boys standing outside the church with bags of dried rice in their hands and ‘massacre in their eyes’. Polly’s haplessness reminds me of Michael Crawford in Some Mothers Do ‘Ave ‘Em or Wilt in the Tom Sharpe novels or any number of hapless, clumsy, dumb men who make fools of themselves in English comic novels and TV of the last 100 years.

Back to the present

And after the comic wedding and the farcical wedding feast the narrative does something unexpected and leaps forward 15 years to where we began, to Polly sitting on a stile above the village of Fishbourne cursing it for a rotten hole.

Miriam took against the house the moment she saw it and has spent 15 years hating living there. Removed from the hilarious atmosphere of the Larkins household she turns out to be humourless and irritable.

Miriam combined earnestness of spirit with great practical incapacity. The house was never clean nor tidy, but always being frightfully disarranged for cleaning or tidying up, and she cooked because food had to be cooked and with a sound moralist’s entire disregard of the quality of the consequences…She ceased to listen to her husband’s talk from the day she married him, and ceased to unwrinkle the kink in her brow at his presence,

The shop just about manages to stay above water while Polly devotes more and more time to buying and reading old books, losing himself in fantasies of the imagination.

Great land of sublimated things, thou World of Books, happy asylum, refreshment and refuge from the world of everyday!…

But fifteen years pass ‘in apathetic and feebly hostile and critical company, ugly in detail and mean in scope’ i.e. Miriam and he gets fat and bald and sallow and, as he approaches 40, increasingly desperate.

There’s a comic passage describing Polly’s disintegrating relationships with all his neighbouring shopkeepers which collapse into apathy, antagonism or positive hatred.

on every hand it seemed were uncongenial people, uninteresting people, or people who conceived the deepest distrust and hostility towards him, a magic circle of suspicious, preoccupied and dehumanised humanity (p.137)

Leading up to a farcical fight with Mr Rusper the ironmonger after Polly’s bike wheel seizes up and he rides smack into the elaborate display of pails and buckets and tools outside Rusper’s shop. They both end up before the Bench and bound over to keep the peace like two children.

All this time Polly’s digestion, always sensitive, has suffered due to Miriam’s appalling cooking, this has become a central feature of Polly’s sense of malaise and illness, one more reason for his sweary exasperation in the scene we opened with, him sitting astride a stile above the town and roundly cursing it, his shop, all his neighbours, his sour wife, and his wretched cramped life.

Suicide attempt and fire

More and more frequently Polly contemplates suicide (p.145). To my surprise he goes so far as to make elaborate plans to set the shop and house on fire, slashing his own throat once the fire had got going so the blaze would be his funeral pyre. In the event he successfully sets fire to his house and shop but then bottles out of killing himself, instead running out into the street shouting Fire Fire!

And this leads into the unexpectedly hilarious scenes of The Great Fire of Fishbourne. The fire Polly starts burns down half the high street and shops of most of his hated neighbours, But unexpectedly, Polly emerges as the hero of the hour because as soon as the fire took, he remembered Mr Rumbold’s aged and deaf mother who lived next door, and so he very publicly, in full view of the gathering crowd, rescued her from her room, escaped with her up onto the roof, then managed her getting onto the ladder which the confused local fire brigade put up against the wall, and so saved her life.

Everyone is housed at the Temperance Hotel where all the locals insist on shaking his hand and all his former enemies declare Polly a hero who deserves a medal. Funny thing is almost all his fellow shopkeepers, far from being distraught, are all quietly happy. This is because they are all insured and so will recoup their losses. but more importantly, most of them had been trapped in the condition of small shopkeeper, a state in which all your capital is tied up in the premises and stock leaving little left over except your pitiful weekly takings. Now they would all receive a tidy lump sum and for many if not most of them, this represents liberation.

Essay about the small shopkeeper

In fact the notion of the small shopkeeper as a fundamentally uneconomical loser, trapped in a financial cage, is so central to the entire novel that Wells invents an unnamed London intellectual and economist and quotes a fictional essay by him on the subject, at great length. I’ll quote it in full because it’s quite interesting in itself but is also an example of the way Wells’s novels were subject to increasing amounts of journalism and digressions on contemporary social issues. (To emphasise, the following is a quote from a supposedly factual essay the author is inserting into his narrative):

‘A rapidly complicating society,’ he writes, ‘which as a whole declines to contemplate its future or face the intricate problems of its organisation, is in exactly the position of a man who takes no thought of dietary or regimen, who abstains from baths and exercise and gives his appetites free play. It accumulates useless and aimless lives as a man accumulates fat and morbid products in his blood, it declines in its collective efficiency and vigour and secretes discomfort and misery. Every phase of its evolution is accompanied by a maximum of avoidable distress and inconvenience and human waste….

‘Nothing can better demonstrate the collective dullness of our community, the crying need for a strenuous intellectual renewal than the consideration of that vast mass of useless, uncomfortable, under-educated, under-trained and altogether pitiable people we contemplate when we use that inaccurate and misleading term, the lower middle class. A great proportion of the lower middle class should properly be assigned to the unemployed and the unemployable. They are only not that, because the possession of some small hoard of money, savings during a period of wage earning, an insurance policy or suchlike capital, prevents a direct appeal to the rates. But they are doing little or nothing for the community in return for what they consume; they have no understanding of any relation of service to the community, they have never been trained nor their imaginations touched to any social purpose. A great proportion of small shopkeepers, for example, are people who have, through the inefficiency that comes from inadequate training and sheer aimlessness, or improvements in machinery or the drift of trade, been thrown out of employment, and who set up in needless shops as a method of eking out the savings upon which they count. They contrive to make sixty or seventy per cent, of their expenditure, the rest is drawn from the shrinking capital. Essentially their lives are failures, not the sharp and tragic failure of the labourer who gets out of work and starves, but a slow, chronic process of consecutive small losses which may end if the individual is exceptionally fortunate in an impoverished death bed before actual bankruptcy or destitution supervenes. Their chances of ascendant means are less in their shops than in any lottery that was ever planned. The secular development of transit and communications has made the organisation of distributing businesses upon large and economical lines, inevitable; except in the chaotic confusions of newly opened countries, the day when a man might earn an independent living by unskilled or practically unskilled retailing has gone for ever. Yet every year sees the melancholy procession towards petty bankruptcy and imprisonment for debt go on, and there is no statesmanship in us to avert it. Every issue of every trade journal has its four or five columns of abridged bankruptcy proceedings, nearly every item in which means the final collapse of another struggling family upon the resources of the community, and continually a fresh supply of superfluous artisans and shop assistants, coming out of employment with savings or ‘help’ from relations, of widows with a husband’s insurance money, of the ill-trained sons of parsimonious fathers, replaces the fallen in the ill-equipped, jerry-built shops that everywhere abound….’

Freedom of the road

Which is why we find our hero, a month later, having received his payout and left Miriam, living as a tramp, walking the open roads of the south of England in the springtime and for the first time in his life really living. The joy of the open road, sleeping under hedges and waking with the dawn chorus, is described for a few pages, before the storyline resumes, as our hero walks round a corner and comes across the perfect inn, situated by a canal at a place called Potwell.

When he knocks and enters he finds a ‘plump’ woman asleep at one of her tables and, when she wakes, Polly and Flo hit it off immediately. They are perfectly in synch. She makes him a meal and when she says the place needs a handyman to do the chores and to punt people across the river on a little punt, Polly accepts at once.

Whatever the truth may be about love, there is certainly such a thing as friendship at first sight. They liked each other’s voices, they liked each other’s way of smiling and speaking.

And Wells captures the tone of their easy bantering very effectively, this is one of his real strengths, here and throughout the book, capturing the sub-texts and implications of dialogue, the charged psychology behind apparently simple remarks. See the extremely charged passage where he nearly proposes to Minnie then proposes to Marion in a kind of funk of reckless panic. Here his exchanges with plump Flo are lovely.

‘I suppose you’re all right. You’ve got a sort of half-respectable look about you. I suppose you ’aven’t done anything.’
‘Bit of Arson,’ said Mr. Polly, as if he jested.
‘So long as you haven’t the habit,’ said the plump woman.

There is just one fly in the ointment (otherwise the happy ending would come too soon) or one ‘Drorback’ as the plump woman puts it, which is that Flo is being terrorised by her sister’s no-good son, Jim. He was always trouble and has turned into a terror since being sent away to reform school, returning to extort food and money from her under threat of violence or damaging the inn.

And so Polly is thrown into the position of knight in armour come to save this fair (if plump) maiden, rather as he had, for those ten glorious days, fantasised about being the knight to the red-haired schoolgirl’s maiden in that odd interlude fifteen years earlier…

Polly contemplates walking away from Flo and her troubles but eventually deciding he has to do the right thing. Wells turns it into a mock epic in three sections or ‘challenges’ with echoes of Rabelais, Cervantes and the long tradition of mock epic.

‘Drop it!’ he cried, and came down the steps waving his poker and thrusting the spectacled gentleman before him as once heroes were wont to wield the ox-hide shield. (p.199)

There follow three distinct fights scattered over several weeks which Polly survives mainly because customers at the inn get involved and help him. After the third and final encounter, in which Jim loots and smashes up most of the inn, while plump Flo barricades herself in the attic, and which triggers the calling of the local police constable, Blake, Jim does a runner and never returns.

Five years later

Polly is happy. He has found his place in the world. He has painted the inn and made it even more popular. He is plump but no longer in a seedy dyspeptic way, but with health and good humour.

One day, five years after the Battle of Uncle Jim, he suddenly remembers Miriam and wonders how she’s getting on. Polly gave her the majority of the insurance after the Great Fire of Fishbourne, £100, but that won’t last forever. So, on the kind of impulse which has always governed his life, he tells Flo he’ll be going a little holiday for a few days, and sets off to find his ex-wife.

In a lovely last act he returns to Fishbourne and is surprised to discover that the three Larkins sisters have set up a tearooms (named Polly and Larkins because Miriam kept her married name). Annie serves him without recognising him and tells him that the errant husband (him) was found drowned at Medway, had been in the water so long he was unrecognisable except for the name labels sewn into his clothes.

Aha! This must have been Jim, who ransacked the inn and stole Polly’s nice new clothes in his final attack. He must have gotten drunk and drowned and the authorities, reading the labels, took it to be Polly. And the life insurance people paid out to his separated wife. And she used the money to establish this tea rooms. Annie explains all this, not recognising him.

Polly is still reeling from all this when Miriam comes in the door and recognises him at once. She collapses in a chair and Polly, terrified at what he’s done, tries to persuade her that he’s not himself, he’s a ghost, he’ll never return, he was never there, and swiftly exists past a puzzled Annie. Moral: never go back.

The novel ends, a few days later, with Polly and the plump woman sitting on a bench overlooking the river at sunset and pondering. Wells has Polly repeat the sentiment expressed in all these social comedies which is that life is never what you think it and never what you plan. Life just happens to you and you roll with the tides.

This may or may not be true but, in the context of this novel, this narrative, this text, it’s a deliciously calm and soothing way to end this brilliant comic novel.

They said no more, but sat on in the warm twilight until at last they could scarcely distinguish each other’s faces. They were not so much thinking as lost in a smooth, still quiet of the mind. A bat flitted by. ‘Time we was going in, O’ Party,’ said Mr. Polly, standing up. ‘Supper to get. It’s as you say, we can’t sit here for ever.’

And so, after a meditative moment, life goes on…


Southern England landscape

The Edwardian decade saw a flowering of patriotic nature writing about England. When I was a student this was explained as a hearty, ale-swigging reaction to the decadence of the 1890s which had been thoroughly discredited by the Oscar Wilde trial. It’s notable in the writing of Hilaire Belloc and GK Chesterton, in the sudden shift to Sussex tales by the former imperialist Rudyard Kipling, the rural background to many of Saki’s tales, and many more. ‘Mr Polly’ certainly contains numerous sensitive descriptions of the (southern) English landscape.

There is no country-side like the English country-side for those who have learnt to love it; its firm yet gentle lines of hill and dale, its ordered confusion of features, its deer parks and downland, its castles and stately houses, its hamlets and old churches, its farms and ricks and great barns and ancient trees, its pools and ponds and shining threads of rivers; its flower-starred hedgerows, its orchards and woodland patches, its village greens and kindly inns. Other country-sides have their pleasant aspects, but none such variety, none that shine so steadfastly throughout the year. Picardy is pink and white and pleasant in the blossom time, Burgundy goes on with its sunshine and wide hillsides and cramped vineyards, a beautiful tune repeated and repeated, Italy gives salitas and wayside chapels and chestnuts and olive orchards, the Ardennes has its woods and gorges – Touraine and the Rhineland, the wide Campagna with its distant Apennines, and the neat prosperities and mountain backgrounds of South Germany, all clamour their especial merits at one’s memory. And there are the hills and fields of Virginia, like an England grown very big and slovenly, the woods and big river sweeps of Pennsylvania, the trim New England landscape, a little bleak and rather fine like the New England mind, and the wide rough country roads and hills and woodland of New York State. But none of these change scene and character in three miles of walking, nor have so mellow a sunlight nor so diversified a cloudland, nor confess the perpetual refreshment of the strong soft winds that blow from off the sea as our Mother England does.

Thus the moment when Polly comes across the Potwell Inn:

It was about two o’clock in the afternoon one hot day in high May when Mr Polly, unhurrying and serene, came to that broad bend of the river to which the little lawn and garden of the Potwell Inn run down. He stopped at the sight of the place with its deep tiled roof, nestling under big trees – you never get a decently big, decently shaped tree by the seaside – its sign towards the roadway, its sun-blistered green bench and tables, its shapely white windows and its row of upshooting hollyhock plants in the garden. A hedge separated it from a buttercup-yellow meadow, and beyond stood three poplars in a group against the sky, three exceptionally tall, graceful and harmonious poplars. It is hard to say what there was about them that made them so beautiful to Mr. Polly; but they seemed to him to touch a pleasant scene to a distinction almost divine. He remained admiring them for a long time. (p.172)

And the specific joys of a country pub, as experienced by the Three Ps out on one of their excursions.

The arrival at the inn was a great affair. No one, they were convinced, would take them for drapers, and there might be a pretty serving girl or a jolly old lady, or what Parsons called a ‘bit of character’ drinking in the bar.

There would always be weighty enquiries as to what they could have, and it would work out always at cold beef and pickles, or fried ham and eggs and shandygaff, two pints of beer and two bottles of ginger beer foaming in a huge round-bellied jug.

The glorious moment of standing lordly in the inn doorway, and staring out at the world, the swinging sign, the geese upon the green, the duck-pond, a waiting waggon, the church tower, a sleepy cat, the blue heavens, with the sizzle of the frying audible behind one! The keen smell of the bacon! The trotting of feet bearing the repast; the click and clatter as the tableware is finally arranged! A clean white cloth!

‘Ready, Sir!’ or ‘Ready, Gentlemen’…The going in! The sitting down! The falling to!

If only any pub, anywhere, was actually like this myth.

Suicide and death

Odd that in the middle of all this comic malarkey there are thoughts of suicide. As Polly tells the plump woman at the very end of the novel:

‘I nearly killed myself with a razor. Who hasn’t? – anyhow, gone as far as thinking of it?’ (p.214)

You could argue that the suicide attempt stains the comic tone, although the suicide scene almost immediately morphs into the farcical scene of the Great Fire of Fishbourne. But it’s also as if Wells has grasped something profound about comic narratives, which is that the really deep comic narrative always pushes right to the edge of bleakness before bouncing back. This is something I learned when studying Shakespeare’s comedies which often include fake deaths or apparent loss, taking us to the edge of darkness before sweeping it all back into the light in a comic finale.

And in ‘Mr Polly’ the hero does, indeed, die, except it is not him, it’s his proxy, bad Uncle Jim, whose death allows Polly to be resurrected and start life anew with a clean sheet. With or without knowing it, Wells was following a very deep archetype.

Wells’s gift at phrase-making

Wells either put a lot effort into, or had a natural flair for, writing interesting, quirky imaginatively phrased sentences. These lopsided, strangely cast but vivid phrases occur on every page. Just in the last few pages I enjoyed:

Mr. Polly went about the place considering the militant possibilities of pacific things…

 The sense of helping numbers came to Mr. Polly’s aid…

A rough man in a blue jersey, in the intervals of trying to choke himself with bread and cheese and pickled onions, broke out abruptly into information.

‘My God!’ she whispered, and crumpled up rather than sat down.

This ability is embodied within the story itself by Polly’s addiction to reading and to the strange words he invents, samples of which I’ve given above. At first it struck me as improbable that someone who had such a poor education and limited life as Alfred Polly would be so bookish and linguistically inventive.

But then it dawned on me that I’m thinking too realistically. Polly is obviously a version of what Wells would have become had he not had the luck to win his scholarship to the Normal School of Science and had his horizons blown open, if he’d remained stuck in a pharmacy in Midhurst or a draper’s shop in Folkestone, his superb verbal imagination undeveloped and stunted. Polly’s home-made deformations of the English language are the cramped, uneducated version of Wells’s own superbly confident, super-articulate phrase-mongering, they are two sides of the same coin.

Anyway, this is made explicit in the story itself, in the long passage where Polly’s joy of reading, of the fantasy worlds opened up by literature, is rhapsodically described, and in particular his relish for unexpected epithets and evocative phrasing (i.e. Wells’s forte). Polly particularly loves Robert Louis Stevenson’s South Sea stories, and Polly is made to single out a specific phrase from one of Stevenson’s tales and then reflect:

Queer incommunicable joy it is, the joy of the vivid phrase that turns the statement of the horridest fact to beauty! (p.127)

Can’t help thinking this was Wells’s credo as well, but Wells, with his frabjous vocabulary, escaped the small, crabbed world which Mr Polly, happily enough, remains trapped in.


Credit

The History of Mr Polly by H.G. Wells was published in 1910. References are to the 1982 Pan Classics edition.

Related links

H.G. Wells reviews

The Edwardians by Roy Hattersley (2004)

Executive summary

Half-way through this hefty 600-page popular history, author Roy Hattersley gives a handy little summary of the era under discussion. Most historians agree that:

  • ‘the Edwardian period’ stretches from the death of Queen Victoria in 1901 to the outbreak of the First World War in 1914
  • it was named and typified by its obese jolly king, a sociable hunting, shooting and cigar-smoking man known for his numerous affairs and mistresses, ‘Edward the Caresser’ as Henry James nicknamed him
  • its dominant political figures were:
    • Arthur Balfour (Conservative Prime Minister 1902 to 1905)
    • Herbert Asquith (Liberal Prime Minister 1908 to 1916)
    • young radical firebrand David Lloyd George (driving force behind the People’s Budget, the Parliament Act and the National Insurance Act which laid the foundations for the welfare state)
    • Winston Churchill was on his way up
    • while Joe Chamberlain, associated with jingoism, the Boer War and protectionism (‘imperial preference’), was on the way out
  • it was a decade troubled by explosive social issues such as women’s suffrage, Irish independence, trade union rights and the arrival of the Labour Party as a political force, destined to supersede the Liberals after the war
  • society was transformed by scientific and technological inventions, on the theoretical level the discover of atomic and subatomic particles and Einstein’s theory of relativity, on the technology level, the rise of the motor car, the telephone and wireless, and the first manned airplane flights

There you have it, in a snapshot.

Dating the Edwardian era

Strictly speaking the Edwardian period refers to the reign of King Edward VII, king from the day his mother, Queen Victoria, died (22 January 1901) to the day he passed away (6 May 1910) to be replaced by his son, King George V (reigned 6 May 1910 to 20 January 1936).

However, like pretty much all historians of the period Hattersley stretches the definition of ‘Edwardian’ forwards to include the four years leading up to the Great War (commenced August 1914). And also, because he feels obliged to explain the origins and course of the Boer War (11 October 1899 to 31 May 1902), which was still ongoing when Edward came to the throne and which requires a description of the Jameson Raid (December 1895), Hattersley at various points goes back before his theoretical starting date to explain the deeper origins of this or that issue.

In other words, the dating is quite fluid, not only when it comes to politics but to social history as well, Hattersley reaching, in his chapter on poverty, back to the many reports on the subject published during the 1890s (for example, Charles Booth’s Life and Labour of the People of London 1889 to 1903); or going back to early roots of the suffragette movement which can said to have started in the 1880s; or of the Labour movement, which can be dated all the way back to Henry Hyndman founding Britain’s first left-wing political party, the Democratic Federation, in 1881; or, regarding the Irish Question, having to dig back into the 1880s to describe the secession of the Liberal Unionists who disagreed with Gladstone’s ill-fated policy of Home Rule for Ireland. And so on.

Subverting a straw man

On the cover, on the back, in the blurb and repeatedly within the text, Hattersley and his publishers say this book tackles and refutes the notion that Edwardian England was one long summer of boaters, bathers and village pubs, attacking the notion that the period ‘is often seen as a golden sunlit afternoon, personified by its genial and self-indulgent king’, before the Armageddon of the First World War.

The trouble is that this is what absolutely every book about the Edwardian era claims to do, using the same straw man to assert its novelty and originality. In fact not just histories but anyone who’s read the introduction to novels by H.G. Wells or Arnold Bennett or E.M. Foster reads the same ‘golden summer’ straw man being knocked down in the same way as the author sets out to correct our misconceptions to tell us that the period 1901 to 1914 was in fact crammed with scientific, technological and consumer product innovations and packed with fraught social and political issues, some of which I’ve listed above. It’s the standard trope invoked by all historians of the period.

The book announces its tone of superior gossip with a gorgeous description of Queen Victoria’s funeral (Saturday, 2 February 1901) and then a gossipy portrait of King Edward, his biography, personality and the courtiers and advisers who surrounded him. Initially, I thought maybe the whole thing was going to be a gossipy survey of Edwardian people. It was only on reading further that I realised that each of the 20 chapters, despite their vague and sometimes misleading titles (I’ve added clearer indications of their subject matter in brackets), is devoted to a specific social and political issue and examines each one in some detail.

It’s a romp, it’s a guilty pleasure, it’s good popular history packed to the gills with fascinating factoids – but still, coming to this book from the works of professional historians like Richard Shannon or Eric Hobsbawm is like falling off a cliff in terms of intellectual substance, historical authority and serious analysis.

1. A Cloud Across The Sun (Victoria’s funeral)

Detailed description of the immense and impressive procession of the body of Queen Victoria through London en route to her final resting place in Windsor. The total number of soldiers involved in taking part in or policing the procession was larger than the British Expeditionary Force sent to France at the start of the Great War. Most people were stunned for nobody knew any other monarch than Victoria who had reigned for 63 years. Generations had been brought up to associate the very word ‘Victorian’ with Britain’s world leading position. Her death triggered much soul searching. Educated commentators were uneasily aware that Britain was slipping. America and Germany were overtaking her in terms of industrial output (p.67, 467) and Germany’s Navy Law of 1898 set it on a course to match or exceed the Royal Navy’s firepower (p.15). Imperial anxiety as the old era ended.

2. The Spirit of the Age (Edward’s character)

Edward was 60 when he came to the throne and was (surprisingly) badly prepared for the job. Successive prime ministers (Gladstone, Disraeli) tried to suggest useful jobs and opinions where he could get a feel for the nation he was set to rule but either Victoria or the Prince himself vetoed them.

He had a state income of £100,000. The whole country knew about Edward’s louche reputation. He had been named in a number of scandalous court cases and was well known to enjoy gambling, the horses, yachting and the high life. He was addicted to baccarat. The serious and high-minded (the kind of people who leave written texts such as sermons, newspaper articles, writers’ diaries etc) deplored his character and worried about the moral falling off which his rule would bring. The Marlborough House set.

But the thing about the written records is they tend to preserve the opinions of the worthy, high-minded, literate and concerned and ignore or neglect the opinions of the vast mass of the population who left few if any records. And in this respect, I think a key thing to grasp about the English is that they welcomed Charles II with open arms, and that well-known womaniser, gambler, horse and yacht-racing addict has gone down as arguably the most popular British king ever. So, away from the hand-wringing editorials, there might have been a great portion of the fun-loving proletariat who admired a merry monarch. (Compare and contrast the ongoing popularity of Boris Johnson – inexplicable to liberals and worthy Tories – an adulterer, drinker and shambling liar, but still admired by many for being a bloke you could go down the pub and have a laugh with).

And indeed Hattersley goes on to say that Edward’s much higher profile than his reclusive mother – photos in the press and reports of him opening Parliament or at racing meetings or holidaying in the South of France – associated him with the new taste for leisure and relaxation. Edward epitomised a new age of leisure.

Edward was very fat due to overeating. His chest and waist measured 48 inches. Hattersley gives mind boggling details of a typical royal meal, which usually had at least 14 courses. His coronation had to be postponed to a sudden flaring up of appendicitis and the consequent operation and was eventually held on 9 August 1902.

Edward hated to be alone and was an insatiable socialiser. He was liable to descend on the grand country houses of the aristocracy with little warning, an event which entailed huge disruption. After a string of extra-marital liaisons in 1892 he met Alice Keppel, the daughter of an admiral, and she became his official mistress for the rest of his life.

He was a menace in foreign affairs, acting tactlessly with the touchy Kaiser, but was personally involved in the great diplomatic triumph of his reign, the Entente Cordiale with France, which he did a lot to cement by a personal visit to Paris during which he undertook a lot of engagements with great enthusiasm and was eventually cheered by the French crowds.

Edward revived the state opening of Parliament in all its meretricious pomp and hollow ceremonial, which had been allowed to lapse by his reclusive mother, and which continues to this day, televised to the simpering tones of royal commentators.

3. The Powers Behind the Throne (Edward’s advisers)

When Edward came to the throne Britain was an imperial oligarchy, ruled by groups of aristocratic or mercantile families. Hattersley gives an entertaining tour of the political class, starting with the lingering influence of the Liberal ‘Grand Old Man’ Gladstone who had died in 1898, and the Conservative Lord Salisbury, Prime Minister when Edward acceded, who resigned a year later in July 1902, to be succeeded by his nephew, Arthur Balfour.

The Edwardian Prime Ministers

  • Lord Salisbury (Conservative) 1895 to 1902
  • Arthur James Balfour (Conservative) 1902 to 1905
  • Henry Campbell-Bannerman (Liberal) 1905 to 1908
  • Herbert Henry Asquith (Liberal) 1908 to 1916

(See section on ‘Politicians’, below.) This fusty world of faineant plutocrats was to be shaken up by the two firebrands, Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George.

The chapter morphs into a consideration of Edward’s closest personal advisers, being: Arthur Hardinge, Francis Knollys, Reginald Brett, military adviser Admiral Fisher.

4. The Condition of England

Named after the bestselling analysis of British society published in 1909 by Liberal politician and cabinet minister Charles Masterman.

Masterman copied the method of Matthew Arnold’s Victorian tract, ‘Culture and Anarchy’, by assigning the classes and groups of people in Edwardian England new generic names:

  • the Conquerors (the old aristocracy)
  • the Suburbans (the middle middle-class)
  • the Multitude (the masses)

In the event Hattersley doesn’t dwell on Masterman’s analysis but uses it as a jumping off point for statistics about Britain’s economic decline, her stalling industrial growth, the shrinking of productive agriculture, the reliance on the informal economics of empire. He then goes on to summarise a bevy of reports and surveys which came out during the decade giving hard evidence of the dire poverty of about half the population, especially agricultural workers (‘Social surveys proliferated in Edwardian Britain’, p.74).

Lots of detail about the pay and wages of workers in different sectors, in different parts of the country with special attention to women.

5. Unfinished Business (the Boer War)

Hattersley’s account of the Boer War, with as much or more about its impact on domestic politics i.e. its fractious impact on an already split Liberal Party (because some Liberals were imperialists and some were anti-imperial Radicals). Milner’s miscalculation in thinking the Boers could be intimidated into submitting to Britain. The reasonableness of Paul Kruger’s position in not wanting his small culturally homogeneous country swamped by outsiders who, if given the vote, would support Britain’s policies. The chaotic conduct of the war. The concentration camp policy: in the 13 months between January 1901 and February 1902, to Britain’s eternal shame, 20,000 internees died, mostly women and children. Lloyd George was a rare voice fiercely denouncing the war, while the imperialist Liberals set up something called the Liberal Imperial Council.

6. A Preference for Empire (the tariff campaign)

‘Victory’ in the Boer War cost the British Exchequer some £222 million. This money had to be recouped. Of all UK politicians Joseph Chamberlain was most associated with the war, ‘Joe’s War’. Massively popular after the victory, he now launched a campaign for imperial protectionism i.e. to create a free trade zone between Britain and the white dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, post-Boer War South Africa) and impose tariffs on imports from all other countries.

Hattersley gives his interpretation of the wild enthusiasm which greeted Joe’s campaign: it was widely seen as a cure for what an increasing number of people were realising was Britain’s industrial eclipse.

Manufacture was in decline. The Industrial Revolution had, in reality, ended more than half a century earlier. The consequences of failure to innovate and invest were just working their way through into the economy. Declining industries longed to be protected by a tariff. (p.109)

In 1903 Chamberlain made a big speech for ‘imperial preference’ which was seen as a proclamation that ‘the British Empire must stand together against the world’ (p.109). The government of the day was Conservative, led by Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, but it only had a majority because of its coalition with the Liberal Unionist defectors from the Liberal party. Now the core principle of old school liberalism was the free trade which had made Britain great in the mid-Victorian period.

In fact Hattersley neglects the detail and implications of protectionism to focus on giving an intricate and quite confusing account of the problems Balfour faced keeping his cabinet and his government together, which boiled down to the timing and way of announcing the resignation of various dissidents. Chamberlain resigned because protectionism wasn’t being implemented fast enough but Tory free traders also resigned in opposition to the policy and detestation of the former Liberal Chamberlain’s influence. Balfour dealt with the ongoing crisis with silky subtlety from 1902 to 1905 and then resigned government at the end of 1905. A general election was held in January 1906 and the Liberals stormed home in a landslide. The Liberals were, in fact, deeply divided over various issues, centrally the question of Irish Home Rule, but managed to unite around their anti-protectionism and ran a campaign highlighting the fact that tariffs would raise the cost of food.

Hattersley skimps on this, a key fact brought out in other accounts I’ve read. Instead he is obsessed with the minutiae of what Balfour promised the Duke of Devonshire who upset a trio of colleagues by not resigning alongside them, with details of meetings and dinners and promises and pledges among the Tory elite. No doubt that’s how politics actually works, but this aspect of Hattersley’s account is for politics addicts.

7. Uniting the Nation (social reforms)

Having painted in the background, this is the chapter in which Hattersley gets round to explaining the changes which he’s been claiming were so central to the Edwardian decade. At their core is one thing, a revolution in the political culture of the nation. Victoria’s entire reign was dominated by a laisser-faire philosophy of free trade and unfettered competition and the devil take the hindmost. Classical liberalism thought the state ought to be small and had just two duties, to uphold the law at home and protect from foreign enemies. When it came to the vast majority of the British population which were either poor or very poor or utterly destitute, the almost universal assumption was that their poverty was their own responsibility. Victorian moralists blamed the plight of the poor on their own indigence, immorality, laziness and so on. The only recourse for the poor and unemployed was the workhouse which, since the Poor Law of 1832, was purposely designed to be as inhumane as possible in order to act as a deterrent, and a spur to the indigent poor to try harder.

During the Edwardian decade this political philosophy underwent a swift and amazing revolution. A series of reports by charities and investigators during the 1890s revealed depths of poverty and squalor in all Britain’s cities but also in the countryside that had never been appreciated before. These findings were incorporated into a series of royal commissions which in turn led to a flurry of acts which fundamentally altered the attitude of the state to the poor from judgemental vengeance to support and responsibility.

  • 1902 registration of midwives
  • 1906 Education Act stipulating the supply of school meals
  • a system of medical inspection of schools
  • 1907 borstals were established for young offenders
  • 1908 act made neglect a criminal offence for the first time

Why? The pop history answer is that the Boer War revealed the shocking health of the stunted wretches conscripted from Britain’s slums. Also, the influence of the growing number of Labour MPs, in the 1906 election Labour won 53 seats.

But what really comes over in this chapter is that we were copying Germany which was already decades ahead of us. This was especially true in the area of supporting the unemployed, creating a national insurance tax to pay the unemployed a minimum dole, and creating labour exchanges to help people back into work. Conservatives were persuaded of these lefty measures because they improved the efficiency of the economy as a whole. And far from being radical experiments, Britain copied the tried and tested methods which were already propelling Germany’s economy ahead of ours on every measure. To compete against its rivals, Britain needed a better educated, better fed workforce that wasn’t allowed to rot and lose its skills when laid off by capitalism’s regular slumps. Hence the unemployed workmen’s act and powers to set up labour exchanges (p.130).

It’s startling to learn that a young William Beveridge went to study Germany’s welfare provision in 1905 and was so impressed by what he saw that he brought back to Britain a version of the Bismarckian system which was to form the basis of the hugely influential report published during the war and which, famously, formed the basis of the Welfare State created by the Labour government under Clement Attlee (p.465).

Some of the child and family laws were passed under the Conservatives before 1905, but the working men’s legislation was driven forward by Winston Churchill during his so-called New Liberal phase. Churchill drove forward prison reform, a bill improving conditions in coal mines, a bill limiting the number of hours people could work in shops,

8. Who Shall Rule?

The clash between the old ruling class and the new liberals came to a head in the great constitutional crisis triggered by Lloyd George’s 1909 budget which imposed new taxes on the rich in order to fund old age pensions and welfare policies and which the House of Lords, dominated by rich landowners, promptly rejected. The Liberal government led by Prime Minister Herbert Asquith, First Earl of Oxford, threatened to flood with Lords with Liberal peers while radical firebrand David Lloyd George toured the country giving rabble rousing speeches, backed up by Winston Churchill, still in his fierce new Liberal phase.

Hattersley gives a fairly detailed account of the political machinations, in the middle of which King Edward died (6 May 1910) and was replaced by his son, George V. The Liberals proceeded to win two general elections (in January and December 1910) (admittedly with Labour and Irish Nationalist support) which persuaded the new sovereign, very reluctantly, to accede to Asquith’s threat, which in turn led the Lords to back down and pass Lloyd George’s Budget and the National Insurance Bill.

Hattersley delivers one of those pithy summaries which I remember my history teachers at school used to extract and turn into an essay question, namely: Victoria handed over to her successor the poisoned chalice of the Boer War, and Edward VII handed over to his successor the Peers-versus-the-People crisis.

9. Ourselves Alone (Irish Home Rule)

After decades of frustration among Irish nationalists, the question of Irish Home Rule returned to the agenda in Westminster because, in the 1910 general election called by the Liberal Party to prove their mandate for Lloyd George’s inflammatory budget of 1909, Conservatives and Liberals both won about 270 seats and so the balance of power was held by the Irish Nationalists with their 82 MPs.

It took the sclerotic process of Whitehall to get it together, but the 1912 Home Rule Bill was the price the British Liberals paid the Irish Nationalists for their support in getting the Budget and the act to reform the House of Lords through (p.187).

Hattersley goes back to recap the background. After the fall of its charismatic leader Charles Stewart Parnell 1890, named in a divorce case as an adulterer, the struggle for Irish independence went into abeyance.

‘The era of constitutional possibilities for Irish nationality ended on the day that Charles Stewart Parnell died.’ (Arthur Griffith, quoted on page 182)

Hattersley namechecks the key players and the numerous organisations set up to campaign for home rule, including Michael Davitt and Arthur Griffith (founder of Sinn Fein and editor of The United Irishman), John MacBride and James Connolly, Roger Casement (revealer of the horrors of Belgium’s colony in the Congo and later gun-runner for the IRA), James Larkin (leader of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union), John Redmond (leader of the Nationalist Party in Parliament), Michael Collins, along with the upper class women, Maud Gonne and Constance Gore-Booth, memorialised by the great poet W.B. Yeats.

Ireland was wretchedly badly run by the British, with rural and urban poverty even worse than on the mainland. The nationalist cause was boosted by Britain’s appalling handling of the Boer War, in which another small people was bullied and butchered by an overweening empire.

I read a lot of this stuff as an undergraduate as background to Yeats’s poetry, and periodically over the following years. Rereading it all in detail, I was struck not by the Irish fight for independence which, in a sense, that is simple and logical, like any other colonial struggle against imperial masters. What always impresses me is the strength of the opposing force, the rise of Unionism in Ulster, led by the brilliant and charismatic lawyer, Sir Edward Carson, the hundreds of thousands of northern Protestants who signed petitions, the 100,000 men who joined the proto Ulster army, the mass smuggling in of guns and ammunition, and the acquiescence of senior officers in the British Army in what Churchill bluntly called treason i.e. actions against the express wish of the elected British government and the King (p.188 ff.).

Hattersley shows how the partition of Ireland between an Irish nationalist south and west and a different entity in the Protestant north was originally one of many solutions proposed in the 1910s but slowly became the most favoured, how it was defined in different ways by different factions among the Unionists but within a few years had gained traction as the least bad option.

10. Votes for Women!

Female England awoke during the Edwardian era. (p.81)

Like the Ireland chapter this one goes back a few decades to background events, for example when Millicent Fawcett founded the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies in 1887. But the story comes to life when Hattersley gives us biographies of the leading campaigner Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel (nicknamed by some papers ‘the Queen of the Mob’).

I knew the suffragettes were violent hooligans who used terrorist techniques (for example, sending letter bombs to leading politicians, p.220) but Hattersley’s account brings out how wilfully violent and destructive they were. Not only throwing bricks and tiles at the Prime Minister and other cabinet members, smashing their windows, vandalising their cars or trying to burn their houses down, slashing paintings in galleries, setting fire to postboxes, rampaging along Oxford Street and Regent Street smashing every shop window with hammers (p.219), spitting at and slapping policemen (p.207), but, when it was discovered some were practicing shooting, it was feared there would be active assassination attempts a la JFK (p.216). They also damaged quite a few works of art.

It was interesting to learn how many of them were lesbians or lived in unorthodox relationships (p.217). It is typical of Hattersley’s enjoyably gossipy approach to learn that the redoubtable Edwardian composer, Ethel Smyth (1858 to 1944), not only went to prison (2 months in Holloway) for smashing the Colonial Secretary’s windows, not only wrote the stirring suffragette anthem, ‘The March of the Women’, but fell passionately in love with (the married) Emmeline P, writing: ‘I knew that before long I would be her slave’ (p.217).

Did you know it was the Daily Mail which coined the word ‘suffragette’ as a term of mockery and abuse but which the activists then adopted with pride and we have used ever since? (p.209)

But the biggest thing that struck me was the reason many Liberal and Labour politicians opposed women’s suffrage wasn’t the principle of the thing, which most approved of – it was fear of its practical consequences.

It had taken decades of fraught negotiation for the existing male electorate to come into being and it still excluded some 5 million men from the vote (always forgotten in this context). Some Labour and Liberals were against women’s suffrage because they knew that the vote would probably, at least at first, only be extended to better-off women who would promptly vote Conservative.

In other words, giving middle-class women the vote (the most feasible strategy) risked destroying radical and progressive politics in Britain for a generation (p.218). It was a cogent and powerful argument, even if making it earned you a slap in the face from Christabel Pankhurst.

In 1912 and ’13 and ’14 bills were drafted to extend the franchise, to which greater or lesser measures of female suffrage were added, and which variously passed or failed in the Commons or in Committee stage but everyone accepted that suffrage was going to happen sooner or later. And then the Great War broke out, putting any further development on the women question – as with Irish independence – on hold but making some sort of solution inevitable once the fighting had finished.

In fact it was before the war ended (in November 1918) that, in January 1918, the Representation of the People Act was passed, giving the vote to men aged over 21, whether or not they owned property, and to women aged over 30 who occupied land or premises with a rateable value above £5, or whose husbands did, thus extending the local government franchise to include women aged over 21 on the same terms as men. As a result of the Act, the male electorate was extended by 5.2 million to 12.9 million and the female electorate went from 0 to 8.5 million, or 2 in 5 adult women.

(It was not until the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928 that women gained full electoral equality with men, the act giving the vote to all women aged over 21, regardless of any property qualification, adding another five million women to the electorate.)

Since 1928 there have been 24 general elections, of which Labour have won 10. From the little research I’ve done, until recently women voters on the whole voted Conservative although that has changed recently (see article on gender divide in general election voting).

11. United We Stand (the trade unions)

The complicated history of trade unions in the Edwardian era. The Taff Vale train dispute case of 1901 recognised trade unions as legal entities but this was the opposite of a Good Thing for it meant that employers could now take trade unions to court if it could be proved that strikes or picketing had adversely affected their business. And not just claim compensation from union funds but sue individual union officials into the bargain (pp.222 to 224).

Hattersley explains that the Trade Union Congress and most unions had regarded politics as peripheral to their core activities of protecting members and campaigning for better pay and conditions, But the potentially crippling implications of the Taff Vale case made them all realise they needed representation in Parliament to defend their interests.

So this chapter traces the earliest history of the Independent Labour Party (founded 1893), the Labour Representation Committee (founded 1900) and its early luminaries, particularly the two key figures of Keir Hardie and Ramsay MacDonald. This leads up to the foundation of the Labour Party proper in 1906, which broke through in that year’s January general election to win 29 seats on 4.8% of the vote (p.234).

Of course Hattersley’s lifelong involvement with the Labour Party, most notably as deputy leader under Neil Kinnock from 1983 to 1992, gives him unprecedented insight into Labour’s traditions and contemporary working. As such it is more than ordinarily interesting when he writes that the party – ‘then, as now, despised theory’, ‘more interested in practice than theory’ – has always been a very soft-left party with little or no theoretical underpinning (p.237).

In fact, the book is sprinkled with asides which sound like the wisdom of practical experience in the field, wry familiarity with the quirks and foibles of Parliamentary politics:

  • [Balfour] took refuge in the expedient employed by uncertain prime ministers down the ages… (p.131)
  • The TUC, always happy to accept half a loaf, was delighted… (p.152)
  • It was a tactic the Tory party was to employ time and time again in an attempt to obstruct the work of elected governments. (p.158)
  • General elections are rarely fought on issues of the parties’ choice… (p.167)
  • Speakers’ judgements on such matters are rarely challenged with success… (p.220)
  • Like so many private members bills it was then buried at the Committee stage and forgotten. (p.231)
  • The new Labour members, euphoric as new members always are… (p.234)
  • The Select Committee Inquiry endorsed the status quo as Select Committee Inquiries often do. (p.282)
  • Select Committees of the House of Commons usually contain one or two Members whose enthusiasm outruns their discretion. (p.457)

Back to the Labour party, it was somehow symbolic that the party’s first leader and Moses, the illegitimate, poorly educated Scotsman, Keir Hardie, made powerful speeches about injustice but knew nothing about economics and had very few practical policies for bringing about the ideal world he depicted in his rousing speeches. Plus ça change…

The detailed series of legal cases which hampered then liberated the Edwardian trade unions, with the explanation of Liberal party support, the advent of the new Labour Party MPs, and the trend for the sometimes very small unions to amalgamate into huge mega-unions based on a specific trade (mining, railwaymen etc) all give a strong sense of a social movement emerging from legal, political and financial weakness, to staking its claim to become a major component of British domestic history for the rest of the century.

12. Useful Members of the Community (education)

It was quite an eye-opener to learn that the central issue in trying to improve education in this country, from 1870s till the 1900s, was religion. To be precise, the majority of schools were run by the Church of England so when any government tried to set up a state-run, nationwide system of primary schools, it had to address two massive problems: 1) the Church of England’s powerful concerns that reforms would mean it losing its influence over the nation’s youth; and 2) the vehement opposition of non-conformists, who strongly objected to Anglican schools being subsidised by their local taxes.

Some non-conformists refused to pay their local taxes under the new system introduced in 1902 and were prepared to go to prison to defend the principle. In fact, the provisions for local authority funding of schools antagonised the large non-conformist community so much that this issue alone goes a long way to explaining why the Tories, who’d brought the Act in, were slaughtered in the 1906 election.

Everyone knew that Britain needed to bring its education system up to the standards of Germany (many British educationists had toured Germany and had realised the German system was way better than ours – just like their industries, businesses, health and welfare systems were streets ahead of ours, p.465). This chapter is a good example of the yawning gulf between political theory and practice; of the way a really simple aim and intention which most of the political class agreed on, could end up requiring endless, torturous negotiations, drafts and redrafts, defeats in the House of Commons and Lords, and so on, before a half-workable compromise finally gets passed.

Just working through the battle of vested interests and the hangover of historic structures and organisations in this one area, education, helps you understand why so many aspects of Britain’s social and economic structure are so compromised, messy, half-cocked and inefficient.

It was also the era when the Workers Education Association was founded (1908), the northern universities received their charters (Birmingham 1900, Manchester and Liverpool 1903, Leeds 1904, Sheffield 1905).

In a parallel stream, the wildly successful Boy Scout movement was founded by General Robert Baden-Powell, hero of the siege of Mafeking, the first camp being on Brownsea Island in 1907. One of the small group of men who founded a movement which they lived to see sweep the world.

13. Ideas Enter the Drawing Room (theatre)

Drawing room drama replaced by theatre of ideas, copying abroad (as usual), in this case Ibsen, and our own provocateur George Bernard Shaw (‘the most famous iconoclast and atheist of his age’, p.370). But first Hattersley conscientiously gives us the owners of London theatres, the price of tickets in London and the provinces, the lives of the great actor managers (Irving) and leading ladies (Ellen Terry, Mrs Patrick Campbell), the quality of middle-brown ‘respectable’ drawing room drama, the advent of musical comedy epitomised by the success of The Merry Widow.

And then the fight against the state censor of plays, the Lord Chamberlain, led by John Galsworthy who, according to Wikipedia:

became known for plays with a social message, reflecting, among other themes, the struggle of workers against exploitation, the use of solitary confinement in prisons, the repression of women, jingoism and the politics and morality of war.

With mention of the plays of Harley Granville-Barker, The Voysey Inheritance and Waste. Throw in the works of George Bernard Shaw and that’s quite a lot of plays about contemporary issues.

But the decade contained the seeds of change. The 1900s saw the first displays of moving pictures and by 1910 buildings had opened devoted to the showing of moving pictures, much more immediate and much cheaper than even the cheapest musical comedy and variety.

14. Literature Comes Home (Edwardian literature)

With the death of Aubrey Beardsley and the imprisonment of Oscar Wilde the Aesthetic Movement petered out. Hattersley quotes Yeats, pre-eminent poet of the Celtic Twilight and then Irish nationalist movement, remarking that around 1900 ‘Everyone got down off their stilts’. The trouble with overviews of the literature by historians or politicians is that they are not professional literary experts, and so they tend to make the obvious points in the obvious ways, writing the same opinions as a thousand other ‘histories of literature’. So: with the end of the Boer War Kipling moved to Britain, settled in Sussex and radically changed his subject matter from tales of the dry and dusty hills of India to stories about England, Puck of Pook’s Hill and the like. The Poet Laureate Alfred Austin and Sir Henry Newbolt supplied a continuation of Kiplingesque patriotic poems but without the subtlety.

If you’re looking for a common thread among the poets it is probably different flavours of patriotism, from Newbolt at the jingo end, through Robert Bridges, GK Chesterton, young Rupert Brooke, and then a flotilla of minor figures, each with one or two anthology poems – Walter de la Mare, John Masefield, poets who would be gathered together in the Georgian anthologies of 1912 and subsequent years.

Hattersley makes the dubiously journalistic claim that one ‘great’ novel was published each year:

1900 – The Way of All Flesh by Butler, Lord Jim by Joseph Conrad

1901 – Kim by Rudyard Kipling

1902 – The Wings of the Dove by Henry James

1903 – The Ambassadors by Henry James

1904 – The Golden Bowl by Henry James, Nostromo by Joseph Conrad

1905 – Where Angels Fear to Tread by EM Foster, Kipps by H.G. Wells

1906 – The Man of Property by John Galsworthy

1907 – The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad

1908 – The Old Wives Tale by Arnold Bennett, A Room with a View by E.M. Foster

1909 – Tono-Bungay and Ann Veronica by H.G. Wells

1910 – Howard’s End by EM Foster, The History of Mr Polly by H.G. Wells, Clayhanger by Arnold Bennett

The New Woman was a recurring theme in fiction and a flurry of woman writers, admittedly popular writers, such as Maria Corelli, Baroness Orczy, Ethel M Dell, Elinor Glyn, children’s writers Frances Hodgson Burnett, E. Nesbit and Beatrix Potter.

What emerges from Hattersley’s brisk review is a sense of an emerging, educated, intelligent middle class, of the rise and rise of the New Woman, of the lives of working people described with a new seriousness, in Wells and Bennett up to a point, but with sensitivity and insight of genius in the novels of DH Lawrence who emerged just at the end of the period (Sons and Lovers, 1913).

15. The End of Innocence (sport)

With increased leisure time, caused in part by government legislation limiting working hours, went the growth of sport: football, cricket, tennis, athletics, rugby league and union, were all put on a more professional basis, paid, and new stadiums and halls built to accommodate growing crowds. Sport became business. London hosted the 1908 Olympic games. The conflict between gentlemen and players, based on snobbery and a wish to keep the classes distinct i.e. gentlemen unsullied by commerce. The first celebrity sportsmen such as Bob Crompton of Blackburn Rovers and W.G. Grace. The aim of gentlemen, in sport as in every other aspect of life, was to demonstrate ‘effortless superiority’. Contemporary commentary is littered with words like ‘chivalry’ and ‘honour’, words associated with the medieval ruling class. The MCC and other sporting bodies, like the House of Lords, could be relied on to resist the encroachment of commercialisation i.e. working class players being paid, for as long as possible.

Meanwhile in other nations, such as America, sportsmen specialised in one game and practiced intensively, sometimes with the support of a ‘coach’ (p.323). Or the advent of American jockeys who used a new posture, ‘the forward seat’, to win (p.331). In sport, as in industry and commerce Britain’s addiction to amateurism, hobbled by class war, condemned it to long-term mediocrity.

Horse racing has always relied on gambling. In 1906 the government tried to regulate it. In 1908 the sport established a new definition of ‘thoroughbred’, mainly with a view to excluding the threat from American-bred winners.

Surprisingly, given the general chauvinism, women progressed in two sports, gold and tennis, although these remained robustly middle class (as they are to this day). Popular men’s sports, on the other hand, steadily became more working class, football and rugby union being two examples, and boxing, the longest establishment popular sport.

Hunting, of course, remained the preserve of the aristocratic elite, surrounded by all manner of preposterous traditions, like chivalry ultimately dating back to the Norman conquest and subjugation of Saxon serfs. As a Saxon serf I have all my life cordially despised the aristocrats who subtly or not so subtly have asserted their superiority over me, John Buchan’s Lord Leithen, Siegfried Sassoon in his memoirs. No surprise that the resistance to Asquith and Lloyd George’s People’s Budget in the House of Lords was led by fox-hunting aristocrats like Willoughby de Broke (with his floridly Norman name). They were, and are, the class enemy.

So many of these social aspects remind me of what H.G. Wells in Tono-Bungay calls the Bladesover system, the way English society was structured around the grand houses of the landed aristocracy in the 17th and 18th centuries, with a constellation of professions (lawyers, doctors, bankers and brokers) servicing them, and had provided the social, cultural, mental and even geographic structure of Britain up till his own time, the only change being the stepping of new businessmen or financiers into various places as the actual aristocracy became defunct, but everyone working to keeping these archaic structures of thought and ceremonial in place. ‘The new middle class hunters wanted to conform…’ (p.337)

I was forced to play lots of sports at school: I disliked cricket because of the boredom and snobbery, really disliked rugby because of the sadistic pleasure big boys took in stomping everyone else, quite liked hockey because there was little physical contact and some skill, really liked rowing especially sculling because you could disappear down the river on your own; and in breaks played football on the tarmac playground, often with small tennis-sized balls.

16. Gerontius Awakes (art, architecture, music)

Another portmanteau chapter, which is interesting enough but feels like a dutiful ticking of obvious boxes. In 1901 commenced the redesign of the Mall from the statue of Victoria (1901) to Admiralty Arch (1911).

John Singer Sargent was friends with Monet but eschewed foreign experimentalism and made himself the Reynolds (i.e. the highly paid portrait painter of the rich) of his day. Hattersley quotes the avant-garde art critic Roger Fry describing Sargent as: ‘as gentle as a man as he was striking and undistinguished as an illustrator and non-existent as an artist’ (p.358), one of the few moments which ruffles the stolid flow of Hattersley’s dutiful nods to all the obvious greats.

The great composer of the day was Edward Elgar, condemned for ever to be remembered for his Pomp and Circumstance marches, written 1901 to 1907. ‘Land of Hope and Glory’ took music from one of the marches and incorporated words by A. C. Benson in 1902. Notes on Delius, Holst (lots of folk songs, St Paul’s suite 1912), Percy Grainger and the young Vaughan Williams (The Lark Ascending 1914). A little later, in 1916, Hubert Parry would set Jerusalem to music. Celebrations of Englishness comparable to the very English settings of Foster, Wells, Saki, Kipling in Pook’s Hill mode and all those Georgian poets.

Architecture characterised by the Edwardian Baroque. Edwin Lutyens, Giles Gilbert Scott and, in Scotland, Charles Rennie Mackintosh. The influence of Alfred Waterhouse on commissions of large public buildings. The Ritz Hotel. The RAC club in Pall Mall. Royal London House, Finsbury Square. Westminster Cathedral (John F. Bentley).

The garden suburb movement, Ebenezer Howard. Letchworth. Hampstead. the prophets thought it would appeal to all classes but like all high-minded movements it attracted the professional middle classes.

The Camden Town school of art, correlative of Zola’s naturalism. Yuk.

In 1910 Grafton art gallery hosted an exhibition of recent French painting (Gauguin, Matisse) which caused a scandal. The critic Roger Fry could only think to label them all post-impressionists, an unsatisfactory label which has stuck (p.356). It highlighted the philistinism of the ruling class and the sensationalising vulgar sensationalising of the press, led by the Times.

The first Futurist manifesto 1909, the second one 1910. Committed to replicating the machine energy of the age.

17. Would You Believe It? (philosophy and religion)

Summary of G.E. Moore’s Principia Ethica which had such a dynamite impact on the Bloomsbury Group. Hattersley summarises it as claiming that morality is relative, changes according to time and place. This was perceived by the Bloomsburies as a huge liberation from Christian morality which insists that moral values are universal and (incidentally), strict and repressive. Moore gave them a theory which underpinned their already existing practice of passionate friendships and cliques. And non-traditional sexual relations i.e. gays and lesbians and other genders in between. Hattersley tags on a brisk explanation of Bertrand Russell’s work on sets and categories, explaining that both Moore and Russell were anti-Christian. From the heights of academia came an attack on the ideology Oxbridge was invented to guard. Backtracking a bit to The Golden Bough, the pioneering work of anthropology which theorised that all human societies progress from pagan polytheism through monotheism and finally achieve the objective rational thought of science.

The life and extraordinary discoveries of New Zealander Ernest Rutherford i.e. discovering that the atom is not the smallest unit of matter but is itself made up of component parts.

Second half of the chapter is about the Christian churches: the part erection of the Catholic Westminster Cathedral; the divisions in the Church of England between High Church at one end and Modernists seeking to reconcile the creed with all the discoveries of science, at the other; the Methodists and other nonconformists. No mention of Jews, Muslims etc…

18. Hardihood, Endurance and Courage

There were four Polar expeditions during the Edwardian decade. Hattersley describes in detail all four of them: Scott’s first 1902-3, Shackleton’s in 1907-8, Scott’s second in 1910-12, Shackleton’s second 1914.

Scott’s diary and the example of Oates are routinely trotted out as examples of British pluck, but reading any account impresses you more with the bad decisions, bad planning, lack of resources and shambolic amateurishness of the attempt. When you read that some of Scott’s companions questioned the quality of the horses and provisions before they even set sail but decided to defer to their captain and social superiority’s judgement (p.406), you hear the genuine voice of deference to idiots which led Britain to near disaster in the Boer War and to catastrophe in the First World War.

Plus the amazing adventures in Central Asia of Marc Aurel Stein, archaeologist of Buddhism (pages 396 to 397), and Colonel Sir Francis Younghusband’s expedition up from British India to Tibet (394 and 5).

19. Halfpenny Dreadful (newspapers)

Riveting chapter about the explosion of newspapers, magazines and journals at the end of the nineteenth century, and the creation of a particular type of populist paper at the turn of the century, focusing on the career of Alfred Harmsworth, later made 1st Viscount Northcliffe (1865 to 1922), creator of the Daily Mail (in 1896) and the Daily Mirror. His career is set against George Newnes’s creation of Tit-Bits magazine in 1881. Newnes mentored and trained a generation of journalists in what came to be called The New Journalism. Harmsworth was one, another was Cyril Arthur Pearson, who founded the Daily Express in 1900.

Hattersley says there were two types of New Journalism, one which aimed to report politics and the news but in a much more accessible format than the solid wall of prose of The Times; and the other sort which didn’t care about serious news at all and was packed with trivia and celebrities.

How with the outbreak of the Boer War, Harmsworth deliberately made the Daily Mail the newspaper of empire, the jingo paper, taking an attitude of unremitting criticism of the (Conservative) government for its comprehensive mismanagement of the war, thus letting our boys down.

Between 1866 when the Companies Act eased the rules of limited liability and 1914 4,000 newspaper companies were formed in London and the provinces. Between 1900 and 1914 ten evening newspapers tried their luck in London.

I didn’t know the Daily Mirror was set up in 1903 to target women readers, had an all-women staff and a woman editor. It only lasted a year. In the end the chapter is all about Harmsworth and ends with his mounting campaign to warn the government about the dire military and naval threat from Germany. Interestingly, he became obsessed with German interest in the very new technology of flying, which he thought the British Army was ignoring.

20. The Shape of Things To Come (new technologies)

Britain pioneered the canal and the steam railway but was badly behind by the time the two next transport innovations came long, electric trams and motor cars. The Americans and Germans pioneered electric tram cars in the 1850s. It took 50 years for them to appear on British streets. And the Germans, French and Italians were all ahead of us in car design. Where had all the engineers gone? And the investors willing to take a punt?

The 1900 Century Road Race to publicise cars (whose diminished legacy is the annual London to Brighton race). Henry Royce the engineer and Charles Rolls the salesman, a partnership made in heaven. the company went from strength to strength, but Rolls used his share of the profits to invest in airplanes. Lord Northcliffe took up the cause of air flight in The Daily Mail and offered prizes for manned flights across the Channel and from London to Manchester. He was taken for a flight by Orville Wright.

Senior politicians became interested. Louis Bleriot won the prize for crossing the Channel in 1909. Northcliffe arranged a reception at the Savoy and Bleriot’s plane was exhibited at Selfridge’s.

The great race from London to Manchester between plucky Brit Claude Graham-White who, of course, lost to his French rival Louis Paulhan. More competitions followed. Charles Rolls was killed in one (12 July 1910).

Ships: a thorough look at Royal Navy shipbuilding, first the companies and yards around Britain, then the revolutionary introduction of turbine-driven ships in the early 1900s. Commercial liners and the construction of the two huge ships the Mauretania and Lusitania. The Blue Riband competition for crossing the Atlantic fastest. The White Star Line commissions two huge superliners to be named the Olympic and the Titanic. On 14 April 1912 on her maiden voyage the Titanic hit an iceberg in mid-Atlantic and sank, drowning 1,515 people.

The chapter begins to free associate because as it sank, the Titanic sent desperate SOSs out by the newish technology of radio, being picked up by the Carpathia which steamed to the rescue, arriving 80 minutes after Titanic sank and rescuing 700 souls. Impressive technology.

And it leads Hattersley into an account of the scandal of government officials trading in shares on Marconi’s Wireless company as other members of the government were awarding the company the contract to build the Imperial Wireless Chain agreed by the 1911 Imperial Conference. Muck-raking scandal. Accusations of libel. Court cases. Commission of inquiry etc.

Epilogue: The Summer Ends in August

A recap of the very bad personal relationship between Edward VII and his sister’s son (i.e. nephew) Kaiser Wilhelm II, starting with the latter gatecrashing the elaborate ceremonial surrounding the funeral of Victoria. Wilhelm comes over as a tactless idiot, for example the interview insulting Britain he gave to the ‘New York World’ while he was a guest in Britain.

It broadens out to become quite a detailed account of the political, diplomatic and military build up to the outbreak of the Great War, seen exclusively through the prism of British-German relations, and more narrowly still, the erratic, angry, aggrieved behaviour of Wilhelm. It’s a sequence of events, featuring the Entente Cordiale, the naval arms race, the building of the Dreadnoughts, the Agadir and Fashoda crises, and the two Balkan wars, which was drummed into me at school for my history GCSE.

As to one of the most over-determined events in global history, Hattersley’s take is that Germany was determined on war by 1913 i.e. none of it was accidental. Germany had collected almost all her foreign debts while leaving her creditors waiting so that the Bundesbank held record gold reserves. Woodrow Wilson’s emissary to Europe, Colonel House, toured the capitals and reported back that the German Army was determined to attack and conquer France according to the Schlieffen Plan before turning on Russia. According to Hattersley Germany was just waiting for a pretext and the Serbian terrorists supplied it.


Politicians

Tory Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, ‘the most influential Tory in Edwardian England’, was languid and ineffectual, ‘personified the dedicated dilettante’ (p.84).

Joseph Chamberlain was a Unitarian by birth and a troublemaker by nature. (p.255)

Radical Joe Chamberlain banged the drum for a more imperialist foreign policy. He was one of the loudest supporters for the catastrophically mismanaged Boer War (1899 to 1902) in which some 20,000 women and children died in Britain’s concentration camps (p.99; described at length in chapter 5; incompetence p.90).

Chamberlain went on to aggressively support the idea of an imperial customs union, more to bind the empire together than for the economics. The widely reported fact that such a union would almost certainly increase the cost of foodstuffs helped the Conservatives lose the 1906 general election by a landslide (chapter 6: ‘A preference for Empire’).

Two new young stars lead the Liberal government, pro-Boer, anti-imperial, anti-establishment David Lloyd George, and temporary radical Liberal, Winston Churchill.

I was surprised at just how radical Lloyd George was: he told suffragettes that if women had the vote there’d be none of these stupid wars; he declared India would never be properly governed till it was given its independence (p.102).

Issues

Edwardian society was riven by disputes about: the Boer War; imperial tariff reform; the controversial 1902 Education Act; votes for women; Irish Home Rule. The 1906 Liberal government went on, in 1909, to propose a Budget designed to raise taxes on the rich and landowners in order to fund radical social reform, namely the provision of old age pensions, national insurance and unemployment benefit. When the bastion of privilege, the House of Lords, rejected the bill, it led to a constitutional crisis in which the Liberals called and won two elections in 1910, and persuaded King Edward to threaten the Lords with creating hundreds of Liberal peers who would flood the Lords and ensure the budget went through (570, to be precise, p.168) . In order to avoid this outcome the Lords voted reluctantly to pass the budget.

Poverty

If you like social history and poverty porn, chapter 4: ‘The Condition of England’ is entirely devoted to the appalling poverty revealed by the many reports, studies and surveys published during the 1890s and 1900s, which lay behind Lloyd George’s righteous anger and his and Churchill’s radical proposals to improve the lives of the poor. Millions of Britons lived in squalid one-room shacks or tenements, slept in the same beds, didn’t have enough money to feed or clothe themselves. A 1904 report concluded that about a third of all British children went hungry every day.

The theme is renewed in chapter 7: ‘Uniting the nation’, a thorough description of the 1906 Liberal government’s attempts to develop social policies, and includes the fascinating factoid that William Beveridge, the young Oxford social scientist, was sent to Germany to learn what he could about their system of national insurance, unemployment benefit, labour exchanges and so on. Here, as in so many other things, we copied the more advanced Europeans (p.465).

International rivalry

One of the leading anxieties of the age was fear of international competition, economic and military. As anyone with a passing interest in history knows, the Edwardian period was obviously one of increasing rivalry and tension between the great powers of Europe, who developed a network of alliances and pacts which, when triggered by the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914, fell like dominoes to trigger the First World War.

Whether this sequence of events was ‘inevitable’, whether the war was the inevitable result of commercial and imperial rivalries, or of the alliance system, or of the creation of a large ambitious German state in the centre of Europe, or, on the contrary, was the result of a handful of miscalculations and misunderstandings, the kind of spats which had been defused and managed in the past and could easily have been defused and resolved in this instance, are issues which have kept, and will keep, historians happily occupied till the end of civilisation.

As to the commercial rivalries, it is probably a little less known among the general population than the First World War but, again, anyone with an interest in modern history knows that by around 1900 Britain had been definitively overtaken in terms of production and gross domestic product by its main rivals, Germany and America (pages 67, 109, 465). Only Britain’s ‘invisible’ exports of financial and banking services, largely to the colonies, kept Britain’s balance of payments from being in the red, based on the fact that the pound sterling was the global currency of choice (p.68). That and the large amount of goods we were able to sell to protected colonial markets, the most important of which was India.

It was this commercial anxiety which explains the appeal to many businessmen, politicians and commentators of Joseph Chamberlain’s impassioned campaign for an imperial customs union from 1903 (described at inordinate length in chapter 6: ‘A preference for Empire’). Joe wanted:

to make the empire a worldwide customs union which was held together by bonds of trade as well as the ties of history. (p.111)

Hattersley gives us an eventually mind-numblingly detailed account, not of the policy itself, but of the extraordinarily complicated political manoeuvring it triggered within the Conservative cabinet, 1902 to 1905. All of which proved pretty pointless because tariff reform, like everything else the Tories stood for, was swept away in the Liberal landslide election of January 1906, and soon afterwards Chamberlain himself suffered a crippling stroke (July 1906) and was forced to withdraw from public life.

Speed of change

Like so many historians of this era, Hattersley lists the dramatic advances made in practical technology (electric lights, the early telephone, bicycles, the swift spread of the motor car), in science (X-rays, radioactivity) and theoretical physics (no history of the period is complete without perfunctory reference to the world-shaking theories of Einstein and Freud) without really conveying their social impact. They are listed but not really assessed…

The endurance of deep structural issues

As regular readers of this blog know, one of the things which strikes me most about reading history or old novels is the continual reminder that problems, issues or ideas which we like to think of as new and exciting but have in fact been around for over a century. And the fact that they’ve been around for so long strongly suggests they are somehow hard-wired into the human condition or into the societies we inhabit.

Thus when you read about politicians’ and businessmen’s and commentators’ anxiety about Britain’s technological and industrial failings, and about the poor shape of British education compared to leading rivals on the continent (Germany, the Scandinavian countries) being expressed in 1901, and realise exactly the same sentiments are common now, one hundred and twenty years later, it can’t help but make you wonder whether these kind of issues are too deeply engrained in British society ever to be changed.

This came over when reading the chapter about the challenge facing Edwardian politicians of trying to solve the very widespread and horrifying poverty, ill health and pitiful life expectancy of the poor of their time. The debate about the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor, about whether the poor bear any responsibility for their poverty or are victims of a system which chews them up and spits them out as it requires, about how much financial help the state should give the unemployed, destitute and long-term, sick, what kind of support the unemployed need to get into work, debates about trying to improve basic wages – all these are debates we are still having today. And that, in my opinion, is because we still live under the kind of laissez fair (nowadays called neo-liberal) capitalist economic system that the Edwardians lived under.

This really came into focus when I searched the internet to find out more about ‘The Condition of England’, a searing indictment of Edwardian Britain published in 1909, by Charles Masterman, radical Liberal Party politician and intellectual (discussed by Hattersley on pages 65 and 66).

On the internet I came across an article about it written in 2009 by David Selbourne, ‘political philosopher, social commentator and historian of ideas’, in the New Statesman. Selbourne highlights the issues raised in Masterman’s book solely to reflect on how little has changed in the subsequent 100 years, these issues being:

  • the Edwardian period was one of astonishing technological change (telegraphs, telephones, electricity, bombs and aeroplanes)
  • yet ‘moral progress’ had not kept up with material growth, and the ever-growing wealth of some, their ‘vulgarised plutocracy’, ‘extravagance’ and ‘ostentation’ went hand in hand with gross poverty and ‘monstrous inequality’
  • between the super-rich and the immiserated poor lie what Masterman termed the ‘suburbans’, members of the commercial and business classes, respectable but ‘lacking in ideas’, comfortable in villas with ‘well-trimmed gardens’, perpetually complaining about being ‘over-taxed’, hostile to the Labour Party, objecting to welfare for ‘loafers’ – what Disraeli in the 1870s called ‘villa Toryism’, the basis of the Daily Mail reading class which is still so powerful today
  • Masterman complains that he lived in a society dominated by money, ‘organised on a money basis, with everything else a side-show’; ‘the people in England and America’ are ‘writhing in the grasp of a money power more and more in the hands of enormous corporations’, a complaint you read every day in 2024
  • Masterman sees religion as becoming ‘irrelevant to the business of the day’ which has, probably, been true for decades
  • Masterman sees the institution of the Family ‘breaking in pieces’ under the strain of daily existence
  • Masterman complains about the ‘vacuous vulgarity’ of the ‘cheap and sensational press’ which actively deceives and excites their mass readership, betraying its duty to the truth
  • as for ‘socialism’, Masterman claims there is little real interest in it; whereas the rich may ‘lie awake at night listening fearfully to the tramp of the rising host’, then as now, the ‘people’ has far more pressing issues on its mind: ‘how to get steady work, the iniquities of the “foreigner” and… which football eleven will attain supremacy in some particular league’
  • and the Labour Party? ‘They may perhaps stand for the working man in opinion’, says Masterman, but ‘the majority of them are certainly remote from him in characteristic’, while ‘a Labour leader, if successful, tends to become conservative’
  • Masterman even complains about the ‘strange mediocrity’, the poor quality of British leaders in ‘high positions in church and state’, something I read about in the press almost every day

In other words, Masterman’s analysis of Britain 1909 can appear, at first glance, like an astonishing anticipation of Britain 2021, except that… it isn’t, as I so often insist, an anticipation: It is an indication of how much hasn’t changed in a century and surely a demonstration of the deep economic and social structures which make up England, which are not somehow extraneous to English society, which are not additional extras which can be easily tweaked if only we elected the right politicians – but which make up the fundamental essence of English society and the English character.

Errors

A couple of errors leaped out at me. George Eliot’s novel ‘Middlemarch’ was not published in 1891-2 (p.308) but 1871-2, and General Gordon was not killed in Khartoum in 1865 (p.341) but 1885. The Russian Revolution did not take place in 1916 (p.359). The Christian states of the Balkans did not form a secret alliance in 1914 (p.475) but in 1912 on the eve of the First Balkan War.

Maybe the proofreader had become as overwhelmed with factoids as I felt.

Conclusion

Most of this is familiar – not necessarily a lot of the details, but certainly the general shape of all the issues. The book is packed with information but the reader gets to the very end and discovers that they really haven’t learned that much. The Edwardian decade was an era of rapid social, cultural and technological change and fraught with a number of political crises? Well, which decade of the twentieth century wasn’t?

Gaps

Having made it to the end of this 480-page marathon one glaring omission stood out – the British Empire. There should have been a chapter about the empire, probably divided into white and non-white i.e. a summary of political and economic developments in Canada-Australia-New Zealand; and then ditto for the non-white colonies starting with India (the partition of Bengal, the founding of the Muslim League) and then Africa (for example, the amalgamation of various colonies into Nigeria), maybe others in the Caribbean or elsewhere. The book was only published 20 years ago but already, with our greater than ever awareness of imperial sins, and the relentless multiculturalisation of Britain, this feels like a glaring absence.


Credit

The Edwardians by Roy Hattersley was published by Little Brown in 2004. All references are to the 2007 Abacus paperback edition.

Related reviews

The Picture of Dorian Gray: Introduction by Peter Ackroyd

Peter Ackroyd

Peter Ackroyd CBE (born in 1949) is an English biographer, novelist and critic. He’s noted for maybe two things: 1) his abiding interest in the history of London and in writers based in London, and 2) his astonishing, daunting productivity. He’s written no fewer than 18 novels and and 45 non-fiction books, 6 of them about Dickens, others about Shakespeare, Blake and Chaucer, and three or four books about London and the Thames.

Anyway, back in 1983 Ackroyd’s second novel was titled ‘The Last Testament of Oscar Wilde’, a fictional diary attributed to Wilde’s last year, 1900. Ackroyd is famous for the research he does into his subjects and so it made sense when Penguin commissioned him, off the back of his novel, to write the introduction to the 1985 Penguin Classic edition of ‘The Picture of Dorian Gray’.

It’s only nine pages long but it’s so packed with ideas and insights that they’re worth itemising and sharing.

Real-life models

The painter Basil Hallward and the lolling aesthete Lord Henry Wotton are possibly based on a painter Wilde knew at Oxford, Frank Miles, who introduced him to the homosexual aesthete Lord Ronald Gower. Wilde himself  made the typically pithy claim that:

‘Basil Hallward is what I think I am: Lord Henry what the world thinks me: Dorian what I would like to be—in other ages, perhaps.’

Critical reception

Some reviewers were scandalised by Dorian. Ackroyd quotes one reviewer, Charles Whibley in the Scots Observer, saying ‘Mr Oscar Wilde has again been writing stuff that were better unwritten’, the ‘again’ referring to Wilde’s essay The Portrait of Mr W.H. which describes Shakespeare’s admiration of a handsome boy actor. He goes on to strongly imply Wilde’s homosexuality when he wrote ‘he can write for none but outlawed noblemen and perverted telegraph boys’ which was a reference to the 1889 Cleveland Street scandal, when a homosexual brothel was uncovered in Cleveland Street, largely staffed by young telegraph boys earning a bit on the side.

Rewriting Dorian

The accusations unnerved Wilde and between its publication in Lippincott’s magazine in July 1890, and the book publication in 1891, he added no fewer than new chapters of a much more conventional Victorian nature (chapters 3, 5, 15, 16, 17, 18).

Is Dorian an unconscious confession?

The book is based on the character’s double life and some critics believe it represented not just an image of Wilde’s own secret homosexuality, but a deep-seated need for confession. An entry-level Freudian interpretation would suggest that Wilde wanted to be found out and, possibly, punished.

Robert Ross introduces Wilde to gay sex

Ackroyd describes Wilde’s education and early years as conventional, marked only by his flamboyant posing as London’s leading aesthete. He married an eligible woman (Constance Lloyd) in 1884 and quickly had two children in 1885 and 1886. According to Ackroyd it was in 1886 that Wilde met young Robert Ross who pursued and seduced him, introducing him to homosexual practices and helping him to become part of a ‘Uranian’ circle in London.

Wilde’s experience of being snubbed

By five years later rumours circulated about him and he was snubbed in some circles and this is, of course, the kind of snubs Dorian Gray is described, by Basil Hallward in his long speech, as experiencing in the novel. In other words, Basil’s description incorporates types of social ostracism which reflected Wilde’s own experiences.

Wilde’s superstitiousness

Wilde was an intensely superstitious man who visited palmists and fortune tellers (the subject of his brilliant short story, Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime). Which helps account for the sense of predestined doom which hangs over the novel right from the start.

‘There is a fatality about all physical and intellectual distinction, the sort of fatality that seems to dog through history the faltering steps of kings. It is better not to be different from one’s fellows… Your rank and wealth, Harry; my brains, such as they are — my art, whatever it may be worth; Dorian Gray’s good looks — we shall all suffer for what the gods have given us, suffer terribly.’

The theme is repeated again and again. A hundred pages, once he has realised that the picture will absorb his sins:

The past could always be annihilated. Regret, denial, or forgetfulness could do that. But the future was inevitable.

Ackroyd points out that one of Wilde’s references to the novel in the long letter he wrote in prison which came to be titled De Profundis, is precisely about this sense of dark destiny.

Doom that like a purple thread runs through the gold cloth of Dorian Gray.

On their second meeting in July 1891 Wilde gave a copy of the novel to the young man he had fallen in love with, Lord Alfred Douglas, handsome and impetuous, as if prefigured by Dorian.

Dorian crystallises Wilde’s reputation

According to Ackroyd Dorian was a success and crystallised Wilde’s reputation. Previously he was known, if at all, for his moralising fairy stories and his clever essays. Ackroyd cites Philippe Julian who wrote that after the publication of Gray: ‘the name of Wilde became a synonym for all that was most unhealthy.’

Wilde’s sustained attacks on the English

Throughout his writings Wilde continually criticises and baits English society (so much so that I’ve devoted a whole blog post to it). For example, if Dorian leads a double life which echoes Wilde’s own concealed homosexuality, he also symbolises the sexual hypocrisy which foreigners (especially the French) saw as a fundamental aspect of English society.

‘I know how people chatter in England. The middle classes air their moral prejudices over their gross dinner-tables, and whisper about what they call the profligacies of their betters in order to try and pretend that they are in smart society and on intimate terms with the people they slander. In this country, it is enough for a man to have distinction and brains for every common tongue to wag against him. And what sort of lives do these people, who pose as being moral, lead themselves? My dear fellow, you forget that we are in the native land of the hypocrite.’

National traits

In its indebtedness to the mood or French decadence and its reference to a ‘poisonous’ book clearly based on the famous decadent novel À rebours by Joris-Karl Huysmans. Still, it’s not really true to claim it, as Arthur Ransome did, ‘the first French novel to be written in the English language.’ Not least because, as Ackroyd suggests, the book’s wit is Irish and its melodrama is very English. Talking of melodrama…

Wilde’s vulgarity and sentimentality

As Ackroyd pithily puts it, ‘There was always a streak of vulgarity in Wilde’s imagination…and he was rarely able to refrain from taking a readily available convention to excessive lengths’. Thus the storyline involving Sibyl Vane, and then the attempted revenge of her brother James, has more in common with the melodrama of Victorian popular novelist Hall Caine than the studied objectivity of Flaubert. Wilde routinely mocked Victorian melodrama and sentimentality but both infect this book.

Learning how to synthesise plot and epigrams

Wilde’s essays had overflowed with showy epigrams. Ackroyd suggests that it was in Dorian Gray that Wilde learned how to integrate the witty repartee and shiny epigrams into a dramatic storyline. He suggests that Gray amounted to a kind of breakthrough which allowed him to embark on the four social comedy plays which made him famous.

Personally, I’m not so sure. Having just read Wilde’s major essays I can vouch for the way the epigrams are well integrated into them and already occur at ‘dramatic’ points in the argument. Also, of course, half the important essays were already dialogues, a format he used to dramatise the flow of his argument – so he was already well on the road to drama before Gray.

And lastly, the storylines and epigrams are not well integrated into the first couple of plays, particularly A Woman of No Importance where the storyline and pages and pages of epigrams are plonked next to each other and not integrated at all.

Epigram versus tragedy

But having introduced the idea of a tension between the shiny epigrams and the tragic storyline, Ackroyd uses it to make a deeper point, which is the way the epigrams stand for and epitomise the ideology of Individualism which he promoted in all his works – while the tragic storyline undermines and unmasks that worldview.

Wilde clearly loves the world of drawling dandies and clever repartee and yet the entire thrust of the novel is to reveal it as shallow and inadequate to the tragic depths of life. As Ackroyd puts it:

In his fiction, he raised up a world in his own image and then condemned it for its emptiness and follies. (Introduction p.xiv)

Despair

It’s not only the experiences of living a double life and of being snubbed that Wilde recycled from his own life. Ackroyd says that Wilde’s correspondence is surprisingly full of expressions of exhaustion and despair, of being burned out. He could hold a table enthralled in fascination at his brilliant wit and captivate an audience with his elaborate pose as a dandy and an aesthete, wittily promoting the need of art for art’s sake. And yet his letters show that he was also capable of deep depression, when all his achievements seemed like dust.

The novel acts out this almost manic-depressive alternation, with its contrasts between the drawing room and dinner party banter whenever Lord Henry is onstage, and the profound gloom which envelops the final third of the novel, after Basil’s murder.

Is Dorian an emblem of imperial despair?

And Ackroyd goes on to extrapolate the tragic end of Gray onto British culture as a whole, suggesting that it epitomises a certain kind of emptiness many found in English society at the very peak of its power and pomp. He relates it to the harrowing emptiness which dominates Joseph Conrad’s early novels, and which, despite all his bluster, also underlies Kipling – the worry that the whole vast effort is pointless, a nagging sense of the futility of life.

Although Wilde was to have four more years of cultural fame and celebrity, Ackroyd suggests that the novel can be taken as a symbol of the sterility and emptiness which dominated not just his private moods, but the values of British imperial society as it reached the height of its pomp (generally taken to be the empire-wide celebrations of Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee in 1897).

Personally, I demur. Plenty of Gothic tales about futility and despair were written in other eras, i.e. there’s nothing unique about stories of decline and fall to the end of the nineteenth century. I would suggest that we associate the era with fictions of doubt and even despair is because they were so well written.

That it wasn’t an era of particular decadence, but that the literature of decadence was just so pithy and powerful – and this has more to do with the rise of short, focused genre fiction (detective fiction, ghost stories, fairy stories – all three of which Wilde had tried) than with a particular worldview.

And the rise of short, punchy genre fiction has more to do with new printing and marketing techniques, the growth of the reading public, the proliferation of magazines catering to different tastes, than with some culture-wide sense of doom.

Class indictment

Far more pertinent, I think, is the idea the novel is an indictment of the English ruling class. To Keir Hardie and other activists of the trade union and socialist movements, to socialists and promoters of all the campaigns for a better society, Wilde’s book must have seemed (as it was intended to be) an expression of supreme aristocratic arrogance. Sure, Dorian gets his come-uppance, but the instigator of the whole thing, Lord Henry Wotton, doesn’t, and the sense you get is of an irredeemably arrogant class cocooned in its privilege and luxury.

That would be the case from the Left. But from the Right, for true-blue Imperialists would have been just as offended. What did someone like Kipling make of it, the man who devoted the first 10 years of his career to lauding the men who built and maintained the British Empire at such high personal cost?

You can imagine all kinds of Brits, from right-wing imperialists to left-wing socialists joining in condemnation of the irresponsible frivolity of the parasite class which Wilde depicts in all his essays, this novel and the four plays.

130 years later, more and more books are being written about the rapacity and greed of the British Empire, its looting treasure from four continents, its brutal wars against native peoples, its inbuilt racism and so on. Reading Dorian makes you wonder whether this was what all that effort and exploitation was for? For posing layabouts like Lord Henry and spoilt young men like Dorian to fritter their riches away on worthless lives?

Or is this to fall into Wilde’s trap? Is thinking like this to adopt the dull, vulgar, philistine mindset which he devoted his life to combating, as he argued for the freedom of the mind-spirit-imagination against the killjoys, busybodies and philistines who are always, in every generation. trying to guilt trip us about ‘poverty’ and ‘politics’ and ‘duty’ and so on?

Does it work?

Yes. It may be melodramatic in conception but it is brilliant in execution. Wilde knew that it was a classic in his own lifetime and it’s been treated as one ever since.

Thoughts

Intelligent introduction, isn’t it? Ackroyd is full of interesting ideas and insights. Unlike many scholarly introducers, Ackroyd flatters the reader’s intelligence and talks up to us. I’ve read a lot of rubbish introductions. This is an excellent one.


Related reviews

The Critic as Artist, with some remarks upon The Importance of Doing Nothing by Oscar Wilde (1891)

‘The Critic as Artist’ is Oscar Wilde’s longest essay and most extensive statement of his aesthetic philosophy. It is a dialogue in two parts and was one of the four long essays included in the collection titled ‘Intentions’, published on 1 May 1891. It is a revised version of two articles that first appeared in the July and September 1890 issues of ‘The Nineteenth Century’ magazine, which were originally entitled ‘The True Function and Value of Criticism’ which is, arguably, a more accurate and useful title.

When I say ‘essay’ in fact this, like the other works in ‘Intentions’, is consciously experimental in format. It is not an essay in the conventional sense but a dialogue conducted by two well-developed characters, namely Gilbert – who delivers long dogmatic statements about the nature of The Critic and Criticism – to Ernest who asks follow-up questions and generally keeps the narrative moving.

In fact the slow and leisurely opening, with chat about Dvorak and gossip and sharing cigarettes, is more like a novel than a critical essay and it has a setting described as in the stage directions for a play:

Persons: Gilbert and Ernest.
Scene: the library of a house in Piccadilly, overlooking the Green Park.

This long essay moves through a succession of assertions about the central role played by criticism and the critical spirit in society, in culture, in art and life. It could probably be made into a set of bullet points, which it briefly crossed my mind to attempt. Instead in what follows I’m going to try and indicate the flow of the argument via brief summaries, sometimes just a sentence long, of the key points, accompanied by quotations. Wilde states his ideas infinitely better than I could.

Unless otherwise stated, the speaker of each of the quotes is Gilbert, who does the lion’s share of the talking.

Part 1

Victorian artists and critics such as James Abbott McNeill Whistler and Matthew Arnold made a firm distinction between fine art and criticism in which criticism played a subservient and secondary role. Arnold was maybe the first English writer to lay out a comprehensive theory of literature and criticism in the late 1860s and 70s, most notable in his book ‘Culture and Anarchy’ published in 1869.

Wilde sets out not only to question this key distinction but to turn it on its head, proposing that: 1) criticism is itself an art form every bit as valid as the others, and that 2) art in any medium cannot be created without critical intelligence.

Only the critical faculty enables any artistic creation at all.

To put it more fully:

The antithesis between them is entirely arbitrary. Without the critical faculty, there is no artistic creation at all, worthy of the name. You spoke a little while ago of that fine spirit of choice and delicate instinct of selection by which the artist realises life for us, and gives to it a momentary perfection. Well, that spirit of choice, that subtle tact of omission, is really the critical faculty in one of its most characteristic moods, and no one who does not possess this critical faculty can create anything at all in art…

Every century that produces poetry is, so far, an artificial century, and the work that seems to us to be the most natural and simple product of its time is always the result of the most self-conscious effort. Believe me, Ernest, there is no fine art without self-consciousness, and self-consciousness and the critical spirit are one…

And:

An age that has no criticism is either an age in which art is immobile, hieratic, and confined to the reproduction of formal types, or an age that possesses no art at all.

Innovation It is the critical spirit which drives change and innovation in the arts:

There has never been a creative age that has not been critical also. For it is the critical faculty that invents fresh forms. The tendency of creation is to repeat itself. It is to the critical instinct that we owe each new school that springs up, each new mould that art finds ready to its hand.

The artists reproduce either themselves or each other, with wearisome iteration. But criticism is always moving on, and the critic is always developing.

The Greeks had no art critics Ernest (the pedestrian one) is made to deliver the tired old cliché that back in the good old days of the Greeks there were no literary journals and Sunday supplements full of hacks scribbling criticism and this was because the ancients created ab ovo, fresh and new, in the dawn of the world, as the inspiration took them. ‘In the best days of art there were no art-critics” and ‘Why should the artist be troubled by the shrill clamour of criticism?’

The Greeks overflowed with art critics Gilbert replies that this is ignorant rubbish. It was the Greeks who invented the critical spirit. Their entire legacy is one of the critical mind, critically enquiring into philosophy, science, ethics and so on. He gives, as a shining example, the ‘Poetics’ of Aristotle, a masterpiece of critical enquiry. And he associates it especially with the later centuries in Alexandria which was overflowing with critics of all the arts, which:

devoted itself so largely to art-criticism, and [where] we find the artistic temperaments of the day investigating every question of style and manner, discussing the great Academic schools of painting, for instance, such as the school of Sicyon, that sought to preserve the dignified traditions of the antique mode, or the realistic and impressionist schools, that aimed at reproducing actual life, or the elements of ideality in portraiture, or the artistic value of the epic form in an age so modern as theirs, or the proper subject-matter for the artist.

The Greeks invented every form In literature we owe the Greeks everything:

The forms of art have been due to the Greek critical spirit. To it we owe the epic, the lyric, the entire drama in every one of its developments, including burlesque, the idyll, the romantic novel, the novel of adventure, the essay, the dialogue, the oration, the lecture (for which perhaps we should not forgive them) and the epigram, in all the wide meaning of that word.

And:

It is the Greeks who have given us the whole system of art-criticism. Whatever, in fact, is modern in our life we owe to the Greeks. Whatever is an anachronism is due to mediævalism.

Literature is the highest art As that list of genres suggests, Wilde unambiguously considers literature the highest art:

It is the Greeks who have given us the whole system of art-criticism, and how fine their critical instinct was, may be seen from the fact that the material they criticised with most care was, as I have already said, language. For the material that painter or sculptor uses is meagre in comparison with that of words. Words have not merely music as sweet as that of viol and lute, colour as rich and vivid as any that makes lovely for us the canvas of the Venetian or the Spaniard, and plastic form no less sure and certain than that which reveals itself in marble or in bronze, but thought and passion and spirituality are theirs also, are theirs indeed alone. If the Greeks had criticised nothing but language, they would still have been the great art-critics of the world. To know the principles of the highest art is to know the principles of all the arts.

He asserts the superiority of literature over all the arts in a couple of pages which are, indeed, very persuasive. Painting and sculpture can only capture a moment whereas literature captures an entire action and the world of thoughts which accompany it. Which is why all the great characters are primarily literary (he gives an extended summary of the action of The Iliad and then a two-page summary of the entire plot of The Divine Comedy) and painting, sculpture and all the other arts in essence merely illustrate the depth of character which literature alone can capture.

Movement, that problem of the visible arts, can be truly realised by Literature alone. It is Literature that shows us the body in its swiftness and the soul in its unrest.

The artist as individual Echoes of his essay ‘The Soul of Man under Socialism’ which is, in fact, a very extended hymn of praise to the importance of Individualism.

There is no art where there is no style, and no style where there is no unity, and unity is of the individual. No doubt Homer had old ballads and stories to deal with, as Shakespeare had chronicles and plays and novels from which to work, but they were merely his rough material. He took them, and shaped them into song. They become his, because he made them lovely.

The longer one studies life and literature, the more strongly one feels that behind everything that is wonderful stands the individual, and that it is not the moment that makes the man, but the man who creates the age.

Criticism demands infinitely more cultivation than creation does.

As a rule, the critics — I speak, of course, of the higher class, of those in fact who write for the sixpenny papers — are far more cultured than the people whose work they are called upon to review. This is, indeed, only what one would expect, for criticism demands infinitely more cultivation than creation does.

In order to really appreciate something you need to understand the entire history and range of the genre, plus all recent developments. True criticism is extremely demanding.

The second rate are correct to decry criticism because their work, being mediocre, doesn’t merit it.

I am aware that there are many honest workers in painting as well as in literature who object to criticism entirely. They are quite right. Their work stands in no intellectual relation to their age. It brings us no new element of pleasure. It suggests no fresh departure of thought, or passion, or beauty. It should not be spoken of. It should be left to the oblivion that it deserves.

Harder to talk than to do Ernest voices the received accusation against criticism, that it is harder to do – to create art – than it is to talk about art. But in a typically Wildean reversal of received opinion, Gilbert insists the opposite is the case:

More difficult to do a thing than to talk about it? Not at all. That is a gross popular error. It is very much more difficult to talk about a thing than to do it. In the sphere of actual life that is of course obvious. Anybody can make history. Only a great man can write it.

Action is instinctive and stupid Flying in the face of the philistine promotion of instinctive action in, for example, the imperial discourse of the time, Wilde says any fool can act, animals are acting all the time, it is instinctive and requires no intelligence.

There is no mode of action, no form of emotion, that we do not share with the lower animals. It is only by language that we rise above them, or above each other — by language, which is the parent, and not the child, of thought. Action, indeed, is always easy, and when presented to us in its most aggravated, because most continuous form, which I take to be that of real industry, becomes simply the refuge of people who have nothing whatsoever to do. No, Ernest, don’t talk about action. It is a blind thing dependent on external influences, and moved by an impulse of whose nature it is unconscious. It is a thing incomplete in its essence, because limited by accident, and ignorant of its direction, being always at variance with its aim. Its basis is the lack of imagination. It is the last resource of those who know not how to dream.

Against the claims of ‘action’ he sets the aesthetic values of passivity and dream.

Action! What is action? It dies at the moment of its energy. It is a base concession to fact. The world is made by the singer for the dreamer.

To summarise:

When man acts he is a puppet. When he describes he is a poet.

A defence of ‘sin’

What is termed Sin is an essential element of progress. Without it the world would stagnate, or grow old, or become colourless. By its curiosity Sin increases the experience of the race. Through its intensified assertion of individualism, it saves us from monotony of type. In its rejection of the current notions about morality, it is one with the higher ethics.

Attack on the ‘virtues’

Charity, as even those of whose religion it makes a formal part have been compelled to acknowledge, creates a multitude of evils. The mere existence of conscience, that faculty of which people prate so much nowadays, and are so ignorantly proud, is a sign of our imperfect development. It must be merged in instinct before we become fine.

Self-denial is simply a method by which man arrests his progress, and self-sacrifice a survival of the mutilation of the savage, part of that old worship of pain which is so terrible a factor in the history of the world, and which even now makes its victims day by day, and has its altars in the land.

He says the none of us know the full results of our actions and it may be that the saint’s actions lead, ultimately to catastrophe while the acts of the criminal, unexpectedly lead to good. In which case life is a kind of moral chaos.

You can imagine the reaction of the average Victorian bourgeois to seeing his system of values and morality being so comprehensively rubbished.

Criticism is an art

Criticism is itself an art. And just as artistic creation implies the working of the critical faculty, and, indeed, without it cannot be said to exist at all, so Criticism is really creative in the highest sense of the word.

Criticism is independent. It is independent because critical intelligence can be applied to any topic. The critic takes the work he’s criticising and makes something new of it in his criticism.

Criticism is no more to be judged by any low standard of imitation or resemblance than is the work of poet or sculptor. The critic occupies the same relation to the work of art that he criticises as the artist does to the visible world of form and colour, or the unseen world of passion and of thought. He does not even require for the perfection of his art the finest materials. Anything will serve his purpose.

In this respect, its complete freedom from being tied to subject matter as art and literature are, you could argue that criticism is the highest art:

I would say that the highest Criticism, being the purest form of personal impression, is in its way more creative than creation, as it has least reference to any standard external to itself, and is, in fact, its own reason for existing, and, as the Greeks would put it, in itself, and to itself, an end.

Criticism is the quintessence of personality

That is what the highest criticism really is, the record of one’s own soul. It is more fascinating than history, as it is concerned simply with oneself. It is more delightful than philosophy, as its subject is concrete and not abstract, real and not vague. It is the only civilised form of autobiography, as it deals not with the events, but with the thoughts of one’s life; not with life’s physical accidents of deed or circumstance, but with the spiritual moods and imaginative passions of the mind.

[The critic’s] sole aim is to chronicle his own impressions. It is for him that pictures are painted, books written, and marble hewn into form.

Contra Arnold Wilde takes Matthew Arnold to task. Among Arnold’s numerous critical nostrums is the famous line that ‘the proper aim of Criticism is to see the object as in itself it really is’. For Wilde this is 180 degrees wrong.

But this is a very serious error, and takes no cognisance of Criticism’s most perfect form, which is in its essence purely subjective, and seeks to reveal its own secret and not the secret of another.

On the other hand, Arnold wrote that art is ‘a criticism of life’:

Arnold’s definition of literature as a criticism of life was not very felicitous in form, but it showed how keenly he recognised the importance of the critical element in all creative work.

The critic is creative In this scenario, the role of the artist or writer is merely to provide subject matter or fodder for the critic, thus giving the critic ‘a suggestion for some new mood of thought and feeling which he can realise with equal, or perhaps greater, distinction of form’ than the original.

Ruskin and Pater Wilde gives two examples: 1) Ruskin’s sonorous critical writings about Turner which, he says, are at least as much works of art as Turner’s actual paintings. And 2) Walter Pater’s well-known paragraph describing the Mona Lisa which he calls a piece of literature more timeless and full of meaning than the painting itself.

It is for this very reason that the criticism which I have quoted is criticism of the highest kind. It treats the work of art simply as a starting-point for a new creation.

The work is just a trigger for the critic

The meaning of any beautiful created thing is, at least, as much in the soul of him who looks at it, as it was in his soul who wrought it. Nay, it is rather the beholder who lends to the beautiful thing its myriad meanings, and makes it marvellous for us, and sets it in some new relation to the age, so that it becomes a vital portion of our lives…

In fact it’s almost the definition of a work of art, a thing of beauty, that it provides this kind of pretext for the critic to exercise his imagination:

The one characteristic of a beautiful form is that one can put into it whatever one wishes, and see in it whatever one chooses to see; and the Beauty, that gives to creation its universal and æsthetic element, makes the critic a creator in his turn, and whispers of a thousand different things which were not present in the mind of him who carved the statue or painted the panel or graved the gem.

To recap:

ERNEST: But is such work as you have talked about really criticism?
GILBERT: It is the highest Criticism, for it criticises not merely the individual work of art, but Beauty itself, and fills with wonder a form which the artist may have left void, or not understood, or understood incompletely.
ERNEST: The highest Criticism, then, is more creative than creation, and the primary aim of the critic is to see the object as in itself it really is not; that is your theory, I believe?
GILBERT: Yes, that is my theory. To the critic the work of art is simply a suggestion for a new work of his own that need not necessarily bear any obvious resemblance to the thing it criticises.

Coda: criticism of Victorian painting Wilde devotes the final page of part 2 to criticising contemporary Victorian painting for its feeble attempts to match literature in telling a story. Too many Victorian paintings are merely anecdotal and so barely rises above the level of illustrations.

Pictures of this kind are far too intelligible. As a class, they rank with illustrations, and, even considered from this point of view are failures, as they do not stir the imagination, but set definite bounds to it.

He uses it as another opportunity to elevate literature above all the other arts for its ability to capture psychology and development.

The domain of the painter is, as I suggested before, widely different from that of the poet. To the latter belongs life in its full and absolute entirety; not merely the beauty that men look at, but the beauty that men listen to also; not merely the momentary grace of form or the transient gladness of colour, but the whole sphere of feeling, the perfect cycle of thought.

The painter is so far limited that it is only through the mask of the body that he can show us the mystery of the soul; only through conventional images that he can handle ideas; only through its physical equivalents that he can deal with psychology.

And:

Most of our elderly English painters spend their wicked and wasted lives in poaching upon the domain of the poets, marring their motives by clumsy treatment, and striving to render, by visible form or colour, the marvel of what is invisible, the splendour of what is not seen. Their pictures are, as a natural consequence, insufferably tedious. They have degraded the invisible arts into the obvious arts, and the one thing not worth looking at is the obvious.

Wilde doesn’t say it but you can see this as part of the reason so much Victorian art is sentimental. It’s because it provides a quick hit. A sad little girl crying, or a pair of sad lovers moping, this is easy to read and respond to. They are appallingly obvious and therefore, in Wilde’s words, ‘ insufferably tedious’.

Against anecdotal Victorian painting the Critic will:

turn from them to such works as make him brood and dream and fancy, to works that possess the subtle quality of suggestion, and seem to tell one that even from them there is an escape into a wider world.

Instead:

The æsthetic critic rejects these obvious modes of art that have but one message to deliver, and having delivered it become dumb and sterile, and seeks rather for such modes as suggest reverie and mood, and by their imaginative beauty make all interpretations true, and no interpretation final.

So that:

The critic reproduces the work that he criticises in a mode that is never imitative, and part of whose charm may really consist in the rejection of resemblance, and shows us in this way not merely the meaning but also the mystery of Beauty, and, by transforming each art into literature, solves once for all the problem of Art’s unity.

At which point the pair break off for dinner (I told you it opens and closes with the circumstantial details you’d expect of a novella or short story).

Part 2

After dinner Gilbert resumes his long exposition of the role of the Critic. The critic’s role is not to passively ‘explain’ the work, it is to emphasise their own interpretation of the work in order to make the work live, which he explains in unusually florid, gaseous terms.

Yet his object will not always be to explain the work of art. He may seek rather to deepen its mystery, to raise round it, and round its maker, that mist of wonder which is dear to both gods and worshippers alike…He will look upon Art as a goddess whose mystery it is his province to intensify, and whose majesty his privilege to make more marvellous in the eyes of men.

The role of the interpreter He gives the example of a great pianist. Their performance is, of course, of a work by Beethoven or Bach but what everyone freely admits to enjoying is their interpretation of the work, and this leads on to a paradox.

When Rubinstein plays to us the Sonata Appassionata of Beethoven, he gives us not merely Beethoven, but also himself, and so gives us Beethoven absolutely — Beethoven re-interpreted through a rich artistic nature, and made vivid and wonderful to us by a new and intense personality.

Same with actors. If a play is a real work of art there is scope for countless interpretations, all revealing something new and ‘true’ about it.

When a great actor plays Shakespeare we have the same experience. His own individuality becomes a vital part of the interpretation. People sometimes say that actors give us their own Hamlets, and not Shakespeare’s but this is a fallacy… In point of fact, there is no such thing as Shakespeare’s Hamlet. If Hamlet has something of the definiteness of a work of art, he has also all the obscurity that belongs to life. There are as many Hamlets as there are melancholies.

Just like the pianist and actor, in order to bring out the truth of the work, the critic must express themselves.

It is only by intensifying his own personality that the critic can interpret the personality and work of others, and the more strongly this personality enters into the interpretation the more real the interpretation becomes, the more satisfying, the more convincing, and the more true.

The more individual the interpretation, the more ‘true’ To better understand and ‘explain’ others, you must work on yourself.

If you wish to understand others you must intensify your own individualism.

So the stronger and more individual the criticism, the more it brings out the truths, sometimes new truths, about the work.

The necessity of scholarship But don’t think this is easy. It requires deep scholarship, for example:

He who desires to understand Shakespeare truly must understand the relations in which Shakespeare stood to the Renaissance and the Reformation, to the age of Elizabeth and the age of James; he must be familiar with the history of the struggle for supremacy between the old classical forms and the new spirit of romance, between the school of Sidney, and Daniel, and Johnson, and the school of Marlowe and Marlowe’s greater son; he must know the materials that were at Shakespeare’s disposal, and the method in which he used them, and the conditions of theatric presentation in the sixteenth and seventeenth century, their limitations and their opportunities for freedom, and the literary criticism of Shakespeare’s day, its aims and modes and canons; he must study the English language in its progress, and blank or rhymed verse in its various developments; he must study the Greek drama, and the connection between the art of the creator of the Agamemnon and the art of the creator of Macbeth; in a word, he must be able to bind Elizabethan London to the Athens of Pericles, and to learn Shakespeare’s true position in the history of European drama and the drama of the world.

The shortcomings of life Philistines go on about the importance of life, true to life, criticism of life, derived from life, a true life story etc etc. But life is appallingly inartistic.

Life is terribly deficient in form. Its catastrophes happen in the wrong way and to the wrong people. There is a grotesque horror about its comedies, and its tragedies seem to culminate in farce. One is always wounded when one approaches it. Things last either too long, or not long enough.

When one looks back upon the life that was so vivid in its emotional intensity, and filled with such fervent moments of ecstasy or of joy, it all seems to be a dream and an illusion. What are the unreal things, but the passions that once burned one like fire? What are the incredible things, but the things that one has faithfully believed? What are the improbable things? The things that one has done oneself. No, Ernest; life cheats us with shadows, like a puppet-master.

Whereas ‘There is no mood or passion that Art cannot give us’ and ‘are there not books that can make us live more in one single hour than life can make us live in a score of shameful years?’

Dante And to prove it, he gives a page-long summary of Dante’s Divine Comedy.

Art evokes sterile emotions He makes the striking claim that the reason Art is such a refuge for so many people is that it evokes sterile emotions. They aren’t like the destructive emotions of real life. They don’t cripple us. On the contrary we return to ‘King Lear’ of the ‘Divine Comedy’ over and over again for pleasure. Art may evoke emotions in us but they are, in the end, very tame.

Art does not hurt us. The tears that we shed at a play are a type of the exquisite sterile emotions that it is the function of Art to awaken. We weep, but we are not wounded. We grieve, but our grief is not bitter… The sorrow with which Art fills us both purifies and initiates…

All art is immoral He then goes on to make a characteristically provocative claim:

All art is immoral.

Elaborated by mention of the aesthete in his ivory tower:

Is such a mode of life immoral? Yes: all the arts are immoral.

How so? Because society and its needs are the basis of ‘morality’ and society’s most elementary need is for all its members to be productive and homogeneous – whereas art requires 1) a great deal of idle time and 2) to fully understand it, you must cultivate your individuality, your difference, your separateness. Both of which society deprecates.

Society often forgives the criminal; it never forgives the dreamer. The beautiful sterile emotions that art excites in us are hateful in its eyes, and people are completely dominated by the tyranny of this dreadful social ideal…

So he doesn’t mean that art encourages people to murder and adultery: he simply means it is against the cult of business and hard work so (officially) beloved of the Victorians.

In the opinion of society, Contemplation is the gravest sin of which any citizen can be guilty, in the opinion of the highest culture it is the proper occupation of man.

The collective life of the race Rather surprisingly, Wilde has Gilbert assert that the ‘soul’ is the accumulated experiences of the race, the ‘transmission of racial experiences’. Which is why, in the imagination, we can travel so freely to other times and places, as captured in their literature. Because our ‘souls’ contain the library of our ‘racial experiences’ and, the right encouragement i.e. art work, can reveal them to us. Which is why a piece of music, a poem opens doors in our minds to memories and feelings we didn’t even know we had.

Wilde’s definition of the soul Highly influenced by the scientific view of heredity, Wilde’s idea of the soul is wildly at odds with the conventional Victorian Christian ideal:

It is not our own life that we live, but the lives of the dead, and the soul that dwells within us is no single spiritual entity, making us personal and individual, created for our service, and entering into us for our joy. It is something that has dwelt in fearful places, and in ancient sepulchres has made its abode. It is sick with many maladies, and has memories of curious sins. It is wiser than we are, and its wisdom is bitter. It fills us with impossible desires, and makes us follow what we know we cannot gain. One thing, however, Ernest, it can do for us. It can lead us away from surroundings whose beauty is dimmed to us by the mist of familiarity, or whose ignoble ugliness and sordid claims are marring the perfection of our development. It can help us to leave the age in which we were born, and to pass into other ages, and find ourselves not exiled from their air. It can teach us how to escape from our experience, and to realise the experiences of those who are greater than we are.

Which is why we can enter into the experiences described by writers such as Leopardi, Theocritus, Pierre Vidal, of Villon and Shakespeare, Shelley and Keats.

Do you think that it is the imagination that enables us to live these countless lives? Yes: it is the imagination; and the imagination is the result of heredity. It is simply concentrated race-experience.

The race experience contained in the critic

The culture that this transmission of racial experiences makes possible can be made perfect by the critical spirit alone, and indeed may be said to be one with it. For who is the true critic but he who bears within himself the dreams, and ideas, and feelings of myriad generations, and to whom no form of thought is alien, no emotional impulse obscure?

Contemplation

ERNEST: the contemplative life, the life that has for its aim not doing but being, and not being merely, but becoming — that is what the critical spirit can give us. The gods live thus: either brooding over their own perfection, as Aristotle tells us, or, as Epicurus fancied, watching with the calm eyes of the spectator the tragicomedy of the world that they have made. We, too, might live like them, and set ourselves to witness with appropriate emotions the varied scenes that man and nature afford.

What the age calls ‘immoral’

Is such a mode of life immoral? Yes: all the arts are immoral, except those baser forms of sensual or didactic art that seek to excite to action of evil or of good. For action of every kind belongs to the sphere of ethics. The aim of art is simply to create a mood.

England is drowning in men of action and business. It needs more ‘immoral’ dreamers who can see beyond the immediate present and its problems, ‘For the development of the race depends on the development of the individual.’ Thus, the so-called ‘immoral’ artist is the most important man in a society, in terms of moving it forwards.

How philistinism derives from conservative society

The security of society lies in custom and unconscious instinct, and the basis of the stability of society, as a healthy organism, is the complete absence of any intelligence amongst its members. The great majority of people being fully aware of this, rank themselves naturally on the side of that splendid system that elevates them to the dignity of machines, and rage wildly against the intrusion of the intellectual faculty into any question that concerns life…

Subjective and objective He articulates another basic Wilde premise which is that we are most subjective when striving to be at our most objective and vice versa.

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.

Which, of course, links to the long essay about masks in the same volume. He goes on to deliver a devastating abolition of the possibility of objective knowledge, subsuming even science and religion into his cult of the subjective:

To arrive at what one really believes, one must speak through lips different from one’s own. To know the truth one must imagine myriads of falsehoods. For what is Truth? In matters of religion, it is simply the opinion that has survived. In matters of science, it is the ultimate sensation. In matters of art, it is one’s last mood.

Dialogue as a medium for the critic Gilbert gives an extended defence of dialogue as a format or genre, the very format this essay is cast in:

Dialogue, certainly, that wonderful literary form which, from Plato to Lucian, and from Lucian to Giordano Bruno, and from Bruno to that grand old Pagan in whom Carlyle took such delight, the creative critics of the world have always employed, can never lose for the thinker its attraction as a mode of expression.

By its means he can both reveal and conceal himself, and give form to every fancy, and reality to every mood. By its means he can exhibit the object from each point of view, and show it to us in the round, as a sculptor shows us things, gaining in this manner all the richness and reality of effect that comes from those side issues that are suddenly suggested by the central idea in its progress, and really illumine the idea more completely, or from those felicitous after-thoughts that give a fuller completeness to the central scheme, and yet convey something of the delicate charm of chance.

He repeats the notion that Literature, if this wasn’t clear already, is the greatest of the arts:

The ultimate art is literature, and the finest and fullest medium that of words.

Surrendering to the work And reiterates the importance of surrendering to an art work, which had been an important theme in The Soul of Man Under Socialism:

Each form of Art with which we come in contact dominates us for the moment to the exclusion of every other form. We must surrender ourselves absolutely to the work in question, whatever it may be, if we wish to gain its secret. For the time, we must think of nothing else, can think of nothing else, indeed.

The ideal critic What qualities does the true critic require? Ernest suggests some characteristics of the ideal critic which Gilbert enjoys demolishing.

1. Fair? No, the ideal critic is a passionate advocate of whichever work and school he is submitting his mind to at the moment.

2. Sincere? No, ‘Art is a passion, and, in matters of art, Thought is inevitably coloured by emotion, and so is fluid rather than fixed’ and so is continually ‘insincere’.

The true critic will, indeed, always be sincere in his devotion to the principle of beauty, but he will seek for beauty in every age and in each school, and will never suffer himself to be limited to any settled custom of thought or stereotyped mode of looking at things. He will realise himself in many forms, and by a thousand different ways, and will ever be curious of new sensations and fresh points of view. Through constant change, and through constant change alone, he will find his true unity. He will not consent to be the slave of his own opinions.

3. Rational? No, art is, as Plato perceived 2,500 years ago, a form of madness and mania.

A dig at journalism In The Soul of Man Under Socialism Wilde made extensive attacks on contemporary journalism and here repeats his criticism.

I regret it because there is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. 1) By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community. 2) By carefully chronicling the current events of contemporary life, it shows us of what very little importance such events really are. 3) By invariably discussing the unnecessary it makes us understand what things are requisite for culture, and what are not.

The artistic qualifications necessary for the true critic ‘A temperament exquisitely susceptible to beauty, and to the various impressions that beauty gives us.’ He cites the passage in Plato which describes the ideal education of Greek youth and summarises that:

The true aim of education was the love of beauty, and that the methods by which education should work were the development of temperament, the cultivation of taste, and the creation of the critical spirit.

Current art Wilde approves of Finally the essay turns to positives and Wilde describes various actual beautiful things. The buildings of Oxford and Cambridge. In art, the Impressionists and a newer school he calls the Archaicistes.

The importance of form rather than ‘inspiration’

He gains his inspiration from form, and from form purely, as an artist should. A real passion would ruin him. Whatever actually occurs is spoiled for art. All bad poetry springs from genuine feeling. To be natural is to be obvious, and to be obvious is to be inartistic.

Yes: Form is everything. It is the secret of life…Start with the worship of form, and there is no secret in art that will not be revealed to you.

Will any artist be influenced by Gilbert’s idea of criticism? Doesn’t matter.

1) The influence of the critic will be the mere fact of his own existence. He will represent the flawless type. In him the culture of the century will see itself realised. You must not ask of him to have any aim other than the perfecting of himself. The demand of the intellect, as has been well said, is simply to feel itself alive.

2) The critic may, indeed, desire to exercise influence; but, if so, he will concern himself not with the individual, but with the age, which he will seek to wake into consciousness, and to make responsive, creating in it new desires and appetites, and lending it his larger vision and his nobler moods.

Surely an artist is the best judge of other artists? No, the reverse.

Indeed, so far from its being true that the artist is the best judge of art, a really great artist can never judge of other people’s work at all, and can hardly, in fact, judge of his own. That very concentration of vision that makes a man an artist, limits by its sheer intensity his faculty of fine appreciation. The energy of creation hurries him blindly on to his own goal.

Characteristically, he uses examples from literature to make the point, the way that Wordsworth, Shelley and Byron all disliked each other’s work and they all disliked Keats.

A truly great artist cannot conceive of life being shown, or beauty fashioned, under any conditions other than those that he has selected.

So, no, artists or writers are not the best judges of other artists or writers. By contrast, only the man who can’t do these things, can appreciate them.

Technique is really personality. That is the reason why the artist cannot teach it, why the pupil cannot learn it, and why the æsthetic critic can understand it. To the great poet, there is only one method of music — his own. To the great painter, there is only one manner of painting — that which he himself employs. The æsthetic critic, and the æsthetic critic alone, can appreciate all forms and modes. It is to him that Art makes her appeal.

The future of criticism In Gilbert’s rather messianic view, the future belongs to criticism. He feels original creative channels are nearly exhausted (a surprisingly suburban bourgeois cliché).

I myself am inclined to think that creation is doomed. It springs from too primitive, too natural an impulse. However this may be, it is certain that the subject-matter at the disposal of creation is always diminishing, while the subject-matter of criticism increases daily.

Surprisingly, he singles out Rudyard Kipling who was, in 1891, the new kid on the block:

As one turns over the pages of his Plain Tales from the Hills [published 1888], one feels as if one were seated under a palm-tree reading life by superb flashes of vulgarity. The bright colours of the bazaars dazzle one’s eyes. The jaded, second-rate Anglo-Indians are in exquisite incongruity with their surroundings. The mere lack of style in the story-teller gives an odd journalistic realism to what he tells us. From the point of view of literature Mr. Kipling is a genius who drops his aspirates. From the point of view of life, he is a reporter who knows vulgarity better than any one has ever known it.

Criticism guides us through the monstrous overload of published books.

Criticism can recreate fragments an entire lost culture from the past.

Only criticism can make us cosmopolitan. All kinds of schemes to achieve peace through sympathy and sentiment have failed.

Criticism will annihilate race-prejudices by insisting upon the unity of the human mind in the variety of its forms. If we are tempted to make war upon another nation, we shall remember that we are seeking to destroy an element of our own culture, and possibly its most important element. As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular…Intellectual criticism will bind Europe together in bonds far closer than those that can be forged by shopman or sentimentalist. It will give us the peace that springs from understanding.

Darwin Wilde mentions Darwin several times. In The Soul of Man under Socialism Darwin is selected as one of the only three or four people in the entire nineteenth century who have ‘realised the perfection of what was in him’. Here he is singled out as one of the few intellectuals who raised themselves above the squabbling of the age:

The intellect of the race is wasted in the sordid and stupid quarrels of second-rate politicians or third-rate theologians. It was reserved for a man of science to show us the supreme example of that ‘sweet reasonableness’ of which Arnold spoke so wisely, and, alas! to so little effect. The author of The Origin of Species had, at any rate, the philosophic temper.

Sin versus stupidity In a move similar to his reversal of the usual meaning of immorality, Wilde insists:

People cry out against the sinner, yet it is not the sinful, but the stupid, who are our shame. There is no sin except stupidity.

Echoing the famous line from the preface to Dorian Gray that:

There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written.

Aesthetics higher than ethics He was playing with fire, bating such a dogmatically philistine ferociously Christian establishment. But he goes on, giving his enemies more ammunition:

To be good, according to the vulgar standard of goodness, is obviously quite easy. It merely requires a certain amount of sordid terror, a certain lack of imaginative thought, and a certain low passion for middle-class respectability. Æsthetics are higher than ethics. They belong to a more spiritual sphere. To discern the beauty of a thing is the finest point to which we can arrive. Even a colour-sense is more important, in the development of the individual, than a sense of right and wrong. Æsthetics, in fact, are to Ethics in the sphere of conscious civilisation, what, in the sphere of the external world, sexual is to natural selection. Ethics, like natural selection, make existence possible. Æsthetics, like sexual selection, make life lovely and wonderful, fill it with new forms, and give it progress, and variety and change.

To the perfect critic sin is impossible He reaches the threshold of blasphemy and charges through it.

And when we reach the true culture that is our aim, we attain to that perfection of which the saints have dreamed, the perfection of those to whom sin is impossible, not because they make the renunciations of the ascetic, but because they can do everything they wish without hurt to the soul, and can wish for nothing that can do the soul harm, the soul being an entity so divine that it is able to transform into elements of a richer experience, or a finer susceptibility, or a newer mode of thought, acts or passions that with the common would be commonplace, or with the uneducated ignoble, or with the shameful vile.

And then he rises to a kind of Hegelian climax, invoking the ‘World Spirit’.

You have spoken against Criticism as being a sterile thing. The nineteenth century is a turning point in history, simply on account of the work of two men, Darwin and Renan, the one the critic of the Book of Nature, the other the critic of the books of God. Not to recognise this is to miss the meaning of one of the most important eras in the progress of the world. Creation is always behind the age. It is Criticism that leads us. The Critical Spirit and the World-Spirit are one.

Wilde’s own summary

On the last page Wilde has Ernest, Gilbert’s exhausted interlocutor, give his own summary of the long night’s lecture:

ERNEST: You have told me many strange things to-night, Gilbert. You have told me that: 1) it is more difficult to talk about a thing than to do it and that 2) to do nothing at all is the most difficult thing in the world; you have told me that 3) all Art is immoral, and 4) all thought dangerous; that 5) criticism is more creative than creation, and that 6) the highest criticism is that which reveals in the work of Art what the artist had not put there; that it is 7) exactly because a man cannot do a thing that he is the proper judge of it; and 8) that the true critic is unfair, insincere, and not rational. My friend, you are a dreamer.

Completely exhausted, the pair open the curtains of Gilbert’s flat to see that dawn is coming up and the dialogue ends with another moment of fictional colour:

Gilbert: Piccadilly lies at our feet like a long riband of silver. A faint purple mist hangs over the Park, and the shadows of the white houses are purple…

Thoughts

Since at least the expansion of universities and the huge growth in courses teaching literature in the 1950s and 60s, the profession of academic criticism has also exploded. There are nowadays scores of schools of criticism, not least the newcomers feminist theory, post-colonial theory and queer theory, and hundreds of thousands of applications of each critical theory to every available work of literature (and film and TV and everything else) often using the difficult or impenetrable jargon of the trade.

Way back before the great tsunami of critical theory darkened the horizon, Wilde’s essay strikes me as an extremely impressive attempt to convey an entire critical worldview. What impresses is its coherence. It sets out to overturn received opinion on just about everything and so doesn’t make a few hits in a few places, but mounts an impressive attempt to create a total worldview.

Quotable quotes

The English public always feels perfectly at its ease when a mediocrity is talking to it.

Every great man nowadays has his disciples, and it is always Judas who writes the biography.

Meredith is a prose Browning, and so is Browning. He used poetry as a medium for writing in prose.

Even the work of Mr Pater, who is, on the whole, the most perfect master of English prose now creating amongst us, is often far more like a piece of mosaic than a passage in music, and seems, here and there, to lack the true rhythmical life of words and the fine freedom and richness of effect that such rhythmical life produces.

ERNEST: But what is the difference between literature and journalism?
GILBERT: Oh! journalism is unreadable, and literature is not read.

We are born in an age when only the dull are treated seriously, and I live in terror of not being misunderstood.

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.

And:

Calm, and self-centred, and complete, the æsthetic critic contemplates life, and no arrow drawn at a venture can pierce between the joints of his harness. He at least is safe. He has discovered how to live.


Related links

Related reviews

The Happy Prince and other stories by Oscar Wilde (1888)

In May 1888, 4 months after the 22 year-old Kipling published Plain Tales from the Hills, the 33 year-old Oscar Fingal O’Flahertie Wills Wilde published his first volume, ‘The Happy Prince and other stories’, five fairy tales for children.

  1. The Happy Prince
  2. The Nightingale and the Rose
  3. The Selfish Giant
  4. The Devoted Friend
  5. The Remarkable Rocket

Wilde takes up Victorian sentimentality about children and poverty where Dickens left it but whereas Tiny Tim or Little Nell were accompanied by the comic, the grotesque and Dickens’s unquenchable verbal energy, Wilde sets his stories in an idealised aestheticised realm of fairyland where statues and animals and rose bushes talk, and strives for a melodious smoothness, clothing his sweetly weeping tales in fin-de-siecle silver and gold:

Pale poppies were broidered on the silk coverlet of the bed, as though they had fallen from the tired hands of sleep, and tall reeds of fluted ivory bare up the velvet canopy, from which great tufts of ostrich plumes sprang, like white foam, to the pallid silver of the fretted ceiling.

1. The Happy Prince

Actually, maybe more Hans Christian Andersen than Dickens, though both authors took the side of the poor and of poor children in particular – and so does Wilde.

The Swallow flew over the great city, and saw the rich making merry in their beautiful houses, while the beggars were sitting at the gates. He flew into dark lanes, and saw the white faces of starving children looking out listlessly at the black streets. Under the archway of a bridge two little boys were lying in one another’s arms to try and keep themselves warm

The third of the happy prince’s charitable beneficiaries is a poor matchgirl freezing in the snow who, of course, reminds us of Andersen’s little matchgirl dying in the snow (Andersen’s story was published in 1845).

In the story all the swallows fly off to Egypt except one who dallies to woo a reed in the lake. But after some time he realises the reed will never reply and so heads south. He stops en route at a town whose highest point is a column on top of which is a gorgeous statue of the happy prince. The swallow rests at his feet but is woken up by drops of rain which he realises are big tears falling from the happy prince’s eyes. He is crying because when he looks out over the town he sees nothing but suffering and misery.

He tells the swallow that he is only called the happy prince because he did not know what tears were, he lived in the Palace of Sans-Souci, surrounded by a high wall where sorrow was not allowed to enter. It is only after he died, and was made into a statue and set on a pillar high above the town that he has been shocked to learn of the widespread poverty and unhappiness among his people: he finds it not only deeply upsetting but puzzling and strange:

There is no Mystery so great as Misery.

On three successive days he asks the swallow to make three trips to a representative of the poor, taking to them part of the prince’s statue which will relieve them of their poverty. On the first day he asks the swallow to take the ruby embedded in his sword to the poor mother of a boy with fever in a garret. On the second day he asks the swallow to take one of the sapphires which make his eyes to a playwright starving in a draughty garret. On the third day he tells the swallow to take the sapphire which forms his other eye to a poor matchgirl shivering in the snow, if she returns penniless her father will beat her, but the gift of the pretty jewel sends her skipping home with happiness.

Now that he is blind the prince asks the swallow to fly out over the town and bring back report of what he sees and he sees misery and poverty and unhappiness. So the prince tells the swallow to unpeel the gold leaf off his body and go deliver a leaf to each of the poor.

Leaf after leaf of the fine gold he brought to the poor, and the children’s faces grew rosier, and they laughed and played games in the street. “We have bread now!” they cried.

The swallow exhausts himself performing all these good deeds, then the real freezing deep winter comes and it is too late for him to fly south. He kisses the happy prince and falls dead at his feet. Then the lead heart within the prince’s statue breaks in two.

Next morning the pompous mayor and his counsellors are walking through the town square when they notice how shabby the statue has become, almost like ‘a common beggar’. The mayor orders it to be taken down and the metal melted down and cast into a fine statue of himself! The overseer at the town furnace discovers the broken lead heart won’t melt down so chucks it on the same scrapheap as the dead swallow.

Then God tells one of his angels to fetch the most precious things in the town to him and the angel brings the dead bird and the old lead heart and God says he did right, and gives the swallow immortal life in Paradise and remakes the happy prince to praise him in his city of Gold.

Commentary

The central structure of three days is immensely reassuring. Why are threes in narratives so primal and so comforting?

The opening passage is important because the swallow’s wooing of the reed gives the whole a pleasantly Greek myth feel, referencing the legend of Pan and Syrinx.

You’d expect Wilde’s prose style to be smooth and mellifluous but it’s worth pointing out the importance of dialogue and, in particular, the contrast between the hypnotic repetitions and Tennysonian diction of the statue (note the ‘will you not’) –

‘Swallow, Swallow, little Swallow,’ said the Prince, ‘will you not stay with me one night longer?’

– and the swallow, who has a much more chirpy, chipper voice (note the demotic, chatty contraction ‘don’t’):

‘I don’t think I like boys,’ answered the Swallow. ‘Last summer, when I was staying on the river, there were two rude boys, the miller’s sons, who were always throwing stones at me.’

So there’s drama at work in the contrasting roles and voices of statue and swallow. As to what makes Wilde’s text feel so gorgeous (apart from the late Victorian poetic diction) it is that at every opportunity he describes rare and precious things, described in striking primary colours, amid repeated references to gold and silver and precious jewels.

He was gilded all over with thin leaves of fine gold, for eyes he had two bright sapphires, and a large red ruby glowed on his sword-hilt…The streets looked as if they were made of silver, they were so bright and glistening; long icicles like crystal daggers hung down from the eaves of the houses, everybody went about in furs, and the little boys wore scarlet caps and skated on the ice…He told him of the red ibises, who stand in long rows on the banks of the Nile, and catch gold-fish in their beaks; of the merchants, who walk slowly by the side of their camels, and carry amber beads in their hands; of the King of the Mountains of the Moon, who is as black as ebony, and worships a large crystal; of the great green snake that sleeps in a palm-tree, and has twenty priests to feed it with honey-cakes…and God said, ‘for in my garden of Paradise this little bird shall sing for evermore, and in my city of gold the Happy Prince shall praise me.’…

Everything is precious and rich and wonderful, designed first and foremost to make the children the stories are read to gasp in wonder.

And then to discuss the moral: God rewards the kind deeds of those who put others above themselves.

2. The Nightingale and the Rose

Talking birds are immediately magical and take you into the world of legend and fairy tales, in English as old as Chaucer, in the ancient world as old as the oldest legends.

Again the story is structured through a series of miniature odysseys and trials. A nightingale sitting in a holm oak tree overhears a young student lamenting that his beloved, the daughter of his professor, will not accompany him to the ball unless he presents her with a red rose. The nightingale is pleased that this is the Platonic Ideal of the True Lover of which she has sung for her entire life but never met before so she decides to help him and undertakes 3 (the magic number) journeys: flying to the rose tree in the middle of the lawn who tells her his roses are white; then to the rose tree twined round the sun dial, who tells her his roses are yellow; then to the rose tree that grows beneath the student’s window, but it tells her it is worn and blasted by winter winds and will not bloom this year.

And yet there is a way to get the student his rose. The nightingale must sing to the rose tree all night long her sweetest song with her breast pressed hard up against the tree so that its thorns pierce through her feather and flesh and triggers her heart’s blood which will rejuvenate the tree and make it produce a blood red rose.

The nightingale accepts and flies back to the holm oak. He can understand that the student is fickle and unreliable and is sad to hear his favourite bird is going to give her life for him. Oak asks nightingale to sing her one last song.

Then night falls, the moon comes out, and the nightingale goes to sing against the rose tree under the student’s window. There are three (magic number) stages:

  • she sang first of the birth of love in the heart of a boy and a girl and that prompts a rose to bud, pale as mist
  • she sang of the birth of passion in the soul of a man and a maid – and a flush of colour comes into the pale rose
  • she sang of the Love that is perfected by Death – and the thorn pierces her heart and the marvellous rose becomes a deep rich crimson

Then the nightingale faints and dies. At dawn the student flings open the window, notices the red rose, plucks it and goes running to present it to the beautiful daughter of his professor. Unfortunately, in the interim the Chamberlain’s nephew has sent her some real jewels so she’s going to the Prince’s ball with him. Infuriated the student flings the rose, created by the ultimate sacrifice of the nightingale, into the street where it is crushed by a common cart, and flounces back to his garret where he resolves to renounce love and dedicate himself to philosophy.

Commentary

As usual the text is as studded with precious gems and jewels as a medieval reliquary.

Surely Love is a wonderful thing. It is more precious than emeralds, and dearer than fine opals. Pearls and pomegranates cannot buy it, nor is it set forth in the marketplace. It may not be purchased of the merchants, nor can it be weighed out in the balance for gold.

And the point of both quests is they move through colour: the white rose and the yellow rose and the red rose; and then the various shades of white, pink and red as the nightingale bleeds out her heart’s blood, with Wilde going to town to elaborate in mellifluous cadences the full possibilities of each of the shades.

These are stories for children. You can see how a parent or teacher could not only read them to a child but then maybe ask some simple questions: so was the nightingale’s sacrifice worth it? even if it didn’t achieve its ultimate goal, was it still a noble and beautiful gesture? is the student right to renounce love just because he’s been rejected by one girl?

3. The Selfish Giant

Every day after school the children stop to play in the giant’s garden. There are twelve peach-trees that in the spring-time broke out into delicate blossoms of pink and pearl. They are able to do this because the giant has been away for a full seven years (seven dwarfs, seven league boots) visiting a friend in Cornwall. On his return he is angry to realise children have been invading his garden and builds a high wall round it and puts up a sign saying Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted.

The children can’t get in to play so the birds don’t sing any more so the trees don’t come into blossom and the flowers in the grass refuse to bloom. Wilde then has fun personifying Snow and Frost and the North Wind and Hail to come and wreak their worst on the barren garden. Spring doesn’t come, nor summer, but a perpetual winter, and the giant is puzzled and upset.

Then one day he hears a bird singing and, looking out the window, finds that the children found a crack in the wall and have snuck back into the garden and are sitting in the boughs of the trees which have all come out in blossom to celebrate which has tempted the birds to return. Except for one corner which is still winter with a blossomless tree covered in snow and a little boy who is too small to climb up into it.

So the giant leaves his bedroom, goes downstairs and into the garden at which all the other children run away screaming but the little boy is blinded by tears and doesn’t realise it is the giant picking him up and putting him into the snowy tree – which promptly bursts into bloom and the birds come and all the children come streaming back and the little boy throws his arms round the giant’s neck and kisses him and then the giant takes a giant hammer and smashes down his wall and passersby are amazed to see lots of children laughing and playing in the most beautiful garden they had ever seen.

But none of them know where the little boy has gone and for years all the children of the neighbourhood play in the garden but never again the little boy. Till one winter, when he is old and creaky, the giant looks out his window and sees the boy standing by one tree which is in blossom. He goes running to see him but is angered when he sees the boy has wounds in his hands and feet. He is the Christ child. These, he explains, are the wounds of Love, and the giant feels a strange awe and kneels before the little boy who tells him, ‘You let me play once in your garden, to-day you shall come with me to my garden, which is Paradise,’ and when the children come to play later that day they find the giant lying dead under the tree, all covered with white blossoms.

That made me cry. If only love was that simple and sweet and all-forgiving.

4. The Devoted Friend

This is a sarcastic or ironic story, the longest in the set. It’s a story within a story, starting with an argument between a selfish water rat and a mother duck who is trying to teach her ducklings the important skill of turning upside down in the water. A linnet flies down and announces she will tell the selfish water rat a story intended to demonstrate what true friendship is:

Little Hans is a nice little man with an innocent face who keeps a lovely garden full of flowers which he sells at market as his only income. He is bullied and over-awed by his neighbour, the big miller named Hugh. This self-important bully persuades himself, his fawning wife and innocent little Hans that he is Hans’s ‘best friend’. He does this by offering Hans his knackered old wheelbarrow (Hugh has just bought himself a new one) and uses the promise of this dubious gift to then extort all manner of favours from Hans: taking the only spare plank of wood Hans has to repair his barn; taking a big bunch of his best flowers off Hans; carrying a heavy sack of flour to market; repairing the miller’s barn roof for him; driving his sheep up into the mountain pasture.

Because of this endless list of impositions Hans rarely has the time or energy to cultivate his own garden or water his own flowers, the sale of which he relies on for his food, while the fat miller enjoys wine and cakes with his wife all the time accusing Hans of being lazy and not appreciating ‘real friendship’ such as he is showing.

Things come to a climax when the miller comes knocking in the middle of a dark and stormy night to tell Hans his son has fallen off the roof and hurt himself and would Hans please walk the three miles through pelting rain across the marsh to the doctors. Hans asks to borrow Hugh’s lantern but Hugh points out that it is far too valuable to give to him.

So, with his usual reluctance overcome by his usual commitment to Hugh’s idea of ‘true friendship’, Hans sets off and after walking through the rain for hours arrives at the doctors and tells him about Hugh’s son’s accident, So the doctor saddles up and rides off leaving Hans to make his way back by night in pelting rain across the marsh and, somewhat inevitably, he wanders off the path and is drowned in a deep pool.

At Hans’s funeral Hugh bullies his way into pride of place as Hans’s ‘best friend’ though he complains that he doesn’t think Hans really appreciated his friendship and, now he’s dead, who the devil is he going to give his knackered, broken down old wheelbarrow to? Really, very selfish of Hans!

So the miller remains utterly ignorant of the nature of true friendship and completely self-involved and self-justifying right to the end:

‘A true friend always says unpleasant things, and does not mind giving pain. Indeed, if he is a really true friend he prefers it, for he knows that then he is doing good.’

And the water rat is his avatar; when the linnet declares the story over and that it had a moral the water-rat is outraged at this imposition on his good nature and scuttles back into his hole.

Commentary

The story is beautifully paced and balanced. It unfolds in the right order at just the right speed. The miller reminds us of the miller in Chaucer, maybe, but is probably more indebted, what with his German name, Hans, to a Grimm’s Fairy Tale.

5. The Remarkable Rocket

The night before the king’s son is scheduled to marry the Russian Princess the fireworks intended for a grand pyrotechnic display get talking. This is very funny as Wilde gives all the different types of fireworks appropriate characters (the sentimental catherine wheel, the Roman candle, the sceptical Bengal light, the airy fire balloon, the rowdy crackers and the chippy little squibs), leading up to the immense, unbearably self-satisfied superiority of the rocket, who comes, he tells the other fireworks, from a really most remarkable lineage, is immensely sensitive and demands respect:

‘The only thing that sustains one through life is the consciousness of the immense inferiority of everybody else, and this is a feeling that I have always cultivated.’

While all the other fireworks are pleased to be let off to celebrate the nuptials of such a beautiful couple, the remarkable rocket insists what an honour it is for them to be married on the great day of his Letting Off. And he weeps to show off his superior sensibility.

Unfortunately, this means that the next evening, after the wedding and at the climax of the party, all the other fireworks perform excellently but the remarkable rocket fails to even light. After the display is over the workmen dismantle the firework board and one of them simply throws the dud rocket over the wall into a ditch.

Here he has a series of comic encounters where he tries to maintain his lofty superiority over a succession of talking animals who are not at all impressed, namely a frog who is very proud of the racket he and his chorus make, a dragonfly who tells him not to worry about the frog, then a big white duck who is given the character of a fussy, middle-class suburbanite before paddling off quack quack quack.

Finally two schoolboys come along with some wood and a kettle planning to light a fire and boil water for tea. They think the rocket is just a stick and shove him in the fire before having a nap. Thus there is nobody at all to see him as he does, eventually, dry out, ignite and shoot high into the midday sky, utterly invisible and insignificant, before feeling a funny tingling sensation and then exploding in a series of impressive bangs which nobody sees or hears.

Then all that remains of this self-important personage, a singed stick, falls out of the sky and lands on the back of a goose who happened to be walking along beside the ditch.

‘Good heavens!’ cried the Goose. ‘It is going to rain sticks,’ and she rushed into the water.
‘I knew I should create a great sensation,’ gasped the Rocket, and he went out.

Commentary

In his vast and comic loftiness the rocket is given a barrage of characteristically paradoxical Wilde witticisms (notably absent from most of the other stories), which look forward to his mature writings:

‘It is a very dangerous thing to know one’s friends.’

‘You have talked the whole time yourself. That is not conversation.’
‘Somebody must listen,’ answered the Frog, ‘and I like to do all the talking myself. It saves time, and prevents arguments.’

‘You are a very irritating person,’ said the Rocket, ‘and very ill-bred. I hate people who talk about themselves, as you do, when one wants to talk about oneself, as I do. It is what I call selfishness.’

‘I like hearing myself talk. It is one of my greatest pleasures. I often have long conversations all by myself, and I am so clever that sometimes I don’t understand a single word of what I am saying.’

‘It would be unfair to expect other people to be as remarkable as oneself.’

‘My good creature,’ cried the Rocket in a very haughty tone of voice, ‘I see that you belong to the lower orders. A person of my position is never useful. We have certain accomplishments, and that is more than sufficient. I have no sympathy myself with industry of any kind, least of all with such industries as you seem to recommend. Indeed, I have always been of opinion that hard work is simply the refuge of people who have nothing whatever to do.’

And some simple but breath-taking effects:

Then the moon rose like a wonderful silver shield.

Ian Small’s introduction

The 1994 Penguin paperback edition of the Complete Short Fiction of Oscar Wilde is edited with an introduction by Ian Small, Professor of English Literature at the University of Birmingham. In his excellent introduction Small makes many good sensible points which are worth remembering.

New genres

The 1870s saw the start of a transformation in the economics of publishing in Britain.

1) New print technology made it possible to print and publish books at much cheaper prices.

2) The 1870 Education Act created (after a lag of about a decade) a new and growing audience of literate but not especially literary customers who wanted good, short, cheap, gripping stories.

3) These trends led to the development of speciality publishers and newly defined sub-genres of fiction. Pre-eminent among these were horror stories (Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hyde, She, Dracula); ghost stories (Wilkie Collins, MR James) adventure stories (Rider Haggard and Kipling); and detective stories (Sherlock Holmes). In a few short years H.G. Wells would single-handedly invented the massively popular new genre of science fiction.

All these new genres were embodied in short stories, and a great wave of new magazines and periodicals exploded onto the shelves of the new kinds of popular bookseller, not least the shops of successful businessman and Tory MP, WH Smith.

Writing for money

In the 1880s Wilde had tried his hand at publishing a slim book of volumes (disappeared without trace) and two serious plays (mocked by critics) and failed. He had been forced back onto journalism, writing and editing magazines and cultivating his reputation as a minor celebrity about town. Small points out that, when he made yet another attempt to break into the literary world in the late 1880s, he was by now married with two small children and so he needed to make money. And this is why he set his sights on using the newly revitalised form of the short story and using the new sub-genres of it which had become so popular.

Parodies

Thus The Canterville Ghost is a parody of a ghost story; Lord Arthur Saville’s Crime is a parody of a detective story; and his fairy stories are parodies of fairy stories. Parodies? Yes, in several ways. For a start there is a knowingness about many of the stories which means that right from the start you’re not surprised when characters don’t behave quite as you’d expect them to: take the cocksureness of the remarkable rocket.

Parenting and childing

Small goes on to make another point which is about parenting. Fairy stories are traditionally told to children to inculcate them into the values of a society. In line with his lifelong interest in ironic reversal, upsetting expectations, parody and paradox, in some of his fairy stories it’s the children who educate the adults. Small’s example is The Friendly Giant, whose size indicates that he is a parent figure but who, of course, needs to be educated by his children. (He also evidences The Canterville Ghost where only the youngest child of the American family has the imagination to understand the ghost and so lay him to rest.)


Related links

Related reviews

Edward Said’s introduction to Kim

Kipling was one of the first novelists to portray the logical alliance between Western science and political power at work in the colonies.
(Norton Critical Edition, p.340)

Literary critic, author of the landmark study, Orientalism, and godfather of the modern disciplines of post-colonial and subaltern studies, Edward Said wrote an introduction for the 1987 Penguin paperback edition of Rudyard Kipling’s classic novel, Kim. Parts of it (pages 30 to 46, to be precise) are excerpted in the 2002 Norton Critical Edition of Kim, edited by Zohreh T. Sullivan.

Kipling’s vulgarity

Surprisingly, maybe, Said begins by repeating George Orwell’s criticism of Kipling’s work as being characterised by ‘vulgarity’. I wonder if he’s getting mixed up with Oscar Wilde, who wrote of Kipling, in his long essay The Critic as Artist, that:

As one turns over the pages of his Plain Tales from the Hills, one feels as if one were seated under a palm-tree reading life by superb flashes of vulgarity.

It’s not just a snappy one-liner. Wilde goes on to consider the rolee of vulgarity in literature at some length.

Orientalism

Anyway, as you would expect, within a few sentences Said climbs onto his hobby horse, his central theme, which is that:

  1. all of Kipling’s work relied on the accumulated storehouse of ‘Orientalist’ stereotypes (the ‘Oriental’ is backward, unreliable, poor, badly educated etc etc)
  2. which itself rested on the basic premise that Orientals are inferior to white men, and
  3. the East has fixed, unchanging essence

Orientalism is an essentialist point of view, denying the reality of historical change and complexity, and if there’s one thing Said hates it’s essentialism.

Said then mentions his central work, Orientalism, and summarises its core findings, namely that 1) every single Western thinker and writer of note in the nineteenth century took for granted the fixed, unalterable inequality of the races and 2) this universally held ‘truth’ underpinned and justified European imperialism around the world.

Said shows how these partial, biased and made-up Orientalist opinions underpinned and permeated so-called ‘scholarly’ and ‘objective’ academic disciplines such as economics, anthropology, history, sociology, linguistics, philology, geography and many more.

In Said’s view, pretty much all European society, society and culture,throughout the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth, were flooded at every level with the basic presumption that the European white male was the pinnacle of human evolution and had the right and duty to take every other nation, race and creed (and gender) in hand in order to bring them up to his own high standards of ‘civilisation’. If this meant invading and conquering these ‘barbarous’ countries, killing lots of their citizens along with warriors, destroying native cultures, religions and practices, imposing utterly alien sets of laws, exploiting those countries and their inhabitants economically, well, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

Colonel Creighton as white alpha male

Said points out that the representative of The Ruling White Man in Kim is Colonel Creighton, head of the secretive ‘Department’ i.e. the British Secret Service in India. He points out (just as I did in my review) that Creighton doesn’t appear very often, and is not drawn in anything like the detail of actual Indians like Mahbub Ali or the Babu – but then, he doesn’t have to be.

The capableness of Creighton, the sense that he is a source of utterly correct decisions and judgements, in a sense underpins the entire narrative because we know that, whatever happens, at some level Creighton a) knows about it, b) has ordered it and c) will make it right. He is a God figure who makes all problems disappear and grants our wishes (i.e. Kim’s wish to become a spy). So he’s pretty easily taken as a symbol of the rightness of British rule over India.

(Western) knowledge is power

But Said is particularly interested in the notion of knowledge. The whole point of his epochal book of cultural criticism, Orientalism, is that he is above all interested in the way certain structures (tropes, stereotypes, clichés, assumptions) became embedded in academic disciplines and then reproduced themselves in each successive generation. For Said the very notions of ‘knowledge’ and ‘science’ and ‘reason’ and ‘competence’ are deeply Orientalist in that they were constructed and defined in opposition to the opposite series of attributes – lack of knowledge, lack of scientific detachment, the fact that Islam hadn’t had a Reformation to separate science from religion, incompetence, irrationality and so on – which generations of scholars attributed to ‘the Orient’, ‘the Arab mind, ‘Islam’ and so on.

Imperial knowledgeableness and Sherlock Holmes

Said, maybe a bit predictably, links Kipling’s obsession with a proper deep understanding of ‘India’ and the Indian mind, with the super omni-competence of a figure like Sherlock Holmes, creation of Arthur Conan Doyle. Doyle had himself travelled widely in the British Empire (Australia and New Zealand, West Africa, South Africa).

The way so many of the Holmes stories turn out to derive from events which took place in faraway lands demonstrates the global reach of Holmes’s mind and this, for Said, is intimately linked with the explosion of so many academic specialisms in the last few decades of the nineteenth century.

Many of these new ‘sciences’, the ones Holmes is so often shown brushing up on and deploying in  his detective work, such as ballistics, forensics, fingerprinting, knowledge of exotic poisons, theories of the criminal mind or of racial ‘types’ and so on, had their origins in the colonies, where they were developed in response to the problems of managing huge populations of natives.

Ethnology and studying the natives

Thus, for Said, it is more than a handy coincidence that Creighton uses as a cover for his espionage activities in India the official title of head of the British Ethnological Survey. ‘Ethnology’ means the study of different races and peoples, their languages, religions, customs and so on, so Creighton’s position perfectly epitomises the fundamental premise of Said’s book, which is that ‘knowledge’ is never pure and disinterested, but is created by human agents to further the deployment of power. Knowledge of a country and its people derives from, and in turn reinforces, power over that country and its people, especially if you are using advanced techniques which the peoples in question don’t even have access to. Then you can end up in the position of knowing more about a people and their country than they do. Which leads Said to summarise, that:

Kipling was one of the first novelists to portray the logical alliance between Western science and political power at work in the colonies. (p.340)

Hurree Chunder as a comic antitype of Creighton

Said then points out how, looked at in this perspective, the Indian Babu, Hurree Chunder, is consistently portrayed as a Creighton manqué. He is educated, he name-drops Western thinkers (especially Herbert Spencer), he has written some papers and he dreams of being taken seriously by the Royal Society. And yet he is played for laughs and the comedy is based on the Orientalist premise that a native can never rise to the level of a white man. the Babu’s aspirations are portrayed as comedic because he himself hasn’t grasped the principle, which Kipling makes the reader complicit in every time he laughs, which is that a coloured man can never reach the height of education and civilisation as a white man. There is an unalterable racial divide between them, almost as if they are two species. This is the core of what Said calls Orientalism, the European belief in the hopeless, unalterable inferiority of brown and black and yellow to that pinnacle of evolution, The White Man.

Annan and sociology

Said cites Noel Annan’s famous (apparently) 1959 essay which associated Kipling with the new (in late-Victorian times) schools of sociology (Durkheim, Weber, Pareto). This new interpretation of society moved away from considering society using dusty old notions like class or national traditions and instead used the notion of groups of people with common interests. The point is that knowledge of these groups gives the knower the ability to move and manipulate them. Said’s core premise that knowledge is power.

This sheds deeper light on Colonel Creighton’s character. He is the model of a modern imperial administrator in that he deals equally with Muslims, Bengalis, Pathans and so on, with perfect frankness, never once pulling rank or belittling their views, never tampering with ‘the hierarchies, the priorities and privileges of caste, religion, ethnicity and race’ (p.342). He is not a vulgar jingoist or rapacious exploiter like earlier administrators; he is more like a social scientist.

From this perspective, the text of Kim can be seen as precisely the kind of jostling of different, self- contained, self-defined socials groups theorised by the new sociology – and the way they’re each treated by Creighton and his creator with fascinated, sympathetic detachment, as embodying the new sociological approach.

Late Victorian miserabilism

Said then carries out a detailed comparison between the character Kim and Jude Fawley, the protagonist of Thomas Hardy’s novel Jude the Obscure (1896). The point of the comparison is to show how Jude, along with the protagonists of other serous fiction of the day, in Flaubert or James or Meredith or Gissing, was a miserable failure. Life, in so many of these late-Victorian novels, is presented as one disillusionment after another, as small, and petty, and disappointing,  either in the tragic mode of these realist novels, or sometimes played for laughs as in the drab suburbia of The Diary of a Nobody (1889).

The novel as a disenchanted genre

In fact Said cites the opinion of the Hungarian Marxist critic György Lukács that the novel itself as a genre is condemned to incompleteness because its commitment to realism cuts it off from the heroic fullness of life expressed in the epic. The first European novel, Don Quixote, is about a pathetic old man who in his deluded way tries to live up to the high tone and heroic achievements of chivalric epic, condemned to continual failure.

For some reason this atmosphere of defeat, the collapse of our deepest dreams, was commonplace in serious late-Victorian literature (Henry James, George Meredith, George Gissing, George Moore, Samuel Butler). Worst of all are the depressive protagonists of Joseph Conrad’s stories, many of whose lives have led to such utter failure and disillusion that they commit suicide.

Kim’s optimism

Anyway, the obvious point is that Kim is the opposite. He is Puck, he is the spirit of energy and enthusiasm, and goes from success to success to success. He succeeds in stymying the foreign spies, he helps the lama fulfil his life’s dream, above all he grows into the image of his boyhood ambitions.

Why? At least in part because he has what you could call imperial freedom. He is an image of fulfilment and success because he enjoys an imperial privilege which all the Indians he meets never can. They are fixed in their roles (as merchant, bureaucrat etc) in a way Kim isn’t.

In fact Kim enjoys a level of freedom not only vis-a-vis the subjects of the Raj but also compared to the white officials of the Raj. Creighton has to play up to the role of senior British official but Kim can put on native clothes and disappear into the teeming alleys of Lahore or Lucknow. It’s as if he puts on a cloak of invisibility, disappears off the radar, goes ‘off grid’ as modern thrillers put it.

So he is free of both sets of constraints: those which bind the native people of India (who he can rise above due to his white privilege and imperial role as spy) and those which bind the white rulers who have to ‘keep up appearances’ because Kim slip off those white responsibilities whenever he likes.

Kim is twice free, free twice times over, enjoys a double measure of freedom. Hence the exuberance of the text and the wonderful sense of freedom and escape it gives its readers.

Identity

This sheds light on the modern academic’s favourite subject of identity. It’s true that on a handful of occasions Kipling describes Kim’s momentary confusion about his multiple identities (white boy, Indian street urchin, disciple of a wandering lama) but these don’t hold back Kim for long because, far from having an identity crisis, from experiencing his multiple identities as an oppression undermining his sense of self, he experiences them as freedom.

Indeed the novel is all about showing him growing into his multiple identities. The protagonists of the late-Victorian realistic novels Said mentions generally lose their sense of personal identity, certainly the Conrad ones do, or, like Jude, their identity becomes identical with failure and so, in the end, unbearable.

Whereas Kim becomes the master of his multiple identities. Like Creighton, he observes himself, studies his different roles and voices, traditions and languages – observes them in order to master and control them.

Kim the character has often been taken as a kind of epitome of India’s jostling identities – but he also embodies within himself White imperial rule over those many identities. Kim rules over the Raj of himself.

Optimism central to boys adventure stories

Said says the optimistic tone and can-do attitude of his hero comes from an earlier phase in the history of the novel, and compares him to protagonists of the French novelist, Stendhal. But surely he’s missing a more obvious point which is that…this is an adventure story for boys; and a pretty basic attribute of this kind of story is precisely the depiction of a resourceful, resilient young lad triumphing in a world of morally ambivalent adults. See boy heroes from Jim Hawkins in Treasure Island to Tintin. They win. They triumph.

Freedom of movement

Said goes on to observe that Kim’s exuberant joie de vivre is closely connected with his freedom of movement around (mostly north) India. Kim is constantly on the move, from Lahore, to Lucknow, Benares and Simla, from Bombay to Karachi to Umballa, with keynote descriptions of the Grand Trunk Road which traversed northern India thrown in.

Said makes the point that this wonderful freedom of movement is like a holiday. Reading the book gives the reader the same sense of the ability to move freely around a fantastically interesting colourful country, at will. Little or money required, no passport, no border police or paperwork, the book breathes freedom, in both time and space and the reader responds very positively.

You won’t be surprised to learn that Said thinks this freedom is the freedom granted to the imperial class. Although there’s enjoyable ambivalence about Kim’s identity, there’s no doubting that all of these colourful travels are paid for by Creighton, the embodiment of the White imperial ruling class. Kim’s wonderfully invigorating freedom is paid for by the existence of the British Empire and white dominion.

P.S.

1) Most of this is an attempt to accurately summarise the points Said makes in his introduction, but quite often I use these as starting ideas of my own. For example, it is Said who makes the point about Jude the Obscure, but it is my development of it to come to the conclusion that Kim ends up ruling the Raj of himself. I added in the (minor) point about there being a comedic side to late-Victorian miserabilism, as embodied inworks like Diary of a Nobody. I added the fairly obvious point that Kim is an adventure story for boys and that, therefore, of course the hero is brave and resourceful, possibly the fundamental premise of the entire genre. I expanded the idea of Sherlock Holmes’s knowledgeableness to be more explicit about the imperial basis for that knowledge.

2) Some of my points overlap, expand or possibly contradict points I’ve made in my other reviews of a) Kim and b) Orientalism. I’m relaxed about that. This isn’t philosophy or physics. There is no right answer. And the whole point of literature, for me, is that a ‘good’ literary work is complex and rich enough for the reader to take something different from it every time they read it – or even think about it.

I tell anybody who’ll listen, that the correct approach to literature (as to art in the broadest sense) is to be able to hold multiple opinions about it, some of which might even be polar opposites, with equal conviction. In this sense I’m about openness and multiplicity and diversity. As Walt Whitman says:

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

I don’t think I contain multitudes. That would be preposterously grandiose. I think good literature contains multitudes, multitudinous complexities of language, theme, plot, imagery and character that make repeated readings worthwhile and new.

The only method is to enjoy.


Credit

Kim was serialised in Cassell’s Magazine from January to November 1901, and first published in book form by Macmillan & Co. Ltd in October 1901. All references are to the 2002 Norton Critical Edition edited by Zohreh T. Sullivan.

Related links

Related reviews

Kim and Orientalism

Edward Said’s 1978 book ‘Orientalism’ mounted a sustained attack on the way eighteenth and nineteenth century Western scholars paved the way for the imperial conquest of the Middle East and India by creating and then maintaining a false concept of ‘the Orient’ and then attributing to its inhabits, so-called ‘Orientals’, a range of negative qualities such as laziness, incompetence, corruption, sensuality, luxury, squalor and so on. They did this in order to bolster and reinforce Western imperialists’ notions of themselves as, by contrast, hard working, chaste administrators of fair play and justice etc.

Said’s huge study aimed to show how all-pervasive these stereotypes and received ideas about ‘the Orient’ had become by the start of the twentieth century, and had endured, in one form or another, right up to the time of writing. His critique was a powerful insight and continues to be influential to this day.

Said’s sophisticated critical perspective moves his reader well beyond a straightforward enjoyment of Kipling’s 1901 novel, Kim, as ‘simply’ a realistic portrait of the India that Kipling grew up in, knew and loved so well, and digs deeper, to critique it as a complex web of ‘Orientalist’ stereotypes designed to bolster and justify British rule.

I’ve just been rereading both Kim and Orientalism and so am well aware of the debate, but I’d like to see it from a slightly different perspective. I’d make four points about the use of ‘stereotypes’ in language and literature.

(Before we begin, the dictionary definition of a stereotype is: ‘a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.’)

1. All language is stereotyped

I suggest that language is always based on stereotypes. Language is general, it is based on very general categories. When I say ‘go’ or ‘red’ or ‘tree’ these are alarmingly imprecise terms. We each have a stereotyped (‘widely held and simplified’) impression of what ‘go’ or ‘red’ or ‘tree’ mean. Specific enough to make communication possible, but vague enough to contain a wide variety of personal connotations, memories and meanings. Language is always, in this sense, a compromise with reality.

When anyone speaks or writes or reads, they bring to their language a wealth of experiences which include not only what they have personally seen and experienced, but what they’ve read, and for the last few generations, what they’ve seen on TV and in the movies and, nowadays, all over the internet and social media.

In other words, if you were test of how accurate most people’s ideas are about any subject you care to choose, when tested against ‘reality’, I bet you’d find that all of us are adrift, askew, influenced by family, friends, early experiences, what we’ve read or watched etc, so as to harbour personal opinions which are, more often than not, generalised and inaccurate.

To recap: in order for language to work, it requires a high level of generalisation, which comes close to the notion of stereotype, of a simplification of the multifarious, continually changing reality which our senses present to us.

2. All fictions are stereotyped

Building on the notion that stereotypes are required for language to even function, I’d then suggest that stereotypes (‘widely held and simplified’ opinions about people or things) are necessary for all fictions to work. In a sense most fictional characters are types. Especially in genre fiction, in the adventure stories of the 1890s I’ve been writing about, it’s widely accepted that the characters are often cardboard thin; the interest isn’t in their interior life but in what happens to them; in external events and adventures.

The most basic form of fictional stereotyping is dividing characters into good guys and bad guys. Throughout written literature good guys and bad guys proliferate, starting with the heroes celebrated by Homer and the pious kings and prophets celebrated by the writers of the Bible, at about the same time (let’s say 500 BC).

For most of its history literature has been tied up with a strong sense of morality, meaning readers or viewers of plays are supposed to assess and judge the characters depicted. Often narrators or characters explicitly ask us to do just that.

What we consider ‘literature’ can be defined as works that give a bit more complex depictions of human psychology, which show people as neither black or white but complex characters, often caught in difficult situations. That’s why we all look back to the Greek tragedies as the beginning of this kind of ‘serious’ literature, because even 2,400 years ago writers and audiences were stimulated by the depiction of complex moral dilemmas. But most classical and pretty much all Christian literature, from the Dark Ages to the 18th century, embodied and promoted relatively straightforward, schematic concepts of morality which relied – I’m arguing – on essentially stereotypical characters.

In Chaucer holiness and virtue, piety and devoutness are praised, as in his beautiful if conventional dream visions. Chaucer’s works become more ‘literary’ when they dramatise conflicting moral schemas, such as setting the Wife of Bath’s attractive vigour and sassiness against traditional Christian notions of chastity and restraint.

Similarly, Shakespeare is universally considered great literature, partly because of his extraordinary use of language, but centrally because of the unparalleled psychological complexity of the characters he creates. There’s a pretty simple scale from cardboard characters = pulp at one end, through to complex characters = literature, at the other.

In the mid-nineteenth century, some writers started to try and wriggle loose from the constraints of the oppressive moralising of Victorian society. Grown-ups like Flaubert and Maupassant in France or the rather more childish Oscar Wilde in Britain, were among the many writers claiming that good literature has nothing to do with ‘morality’, and should be judged purely on style and technical achievement. But they were struggling against their own instincts. Flaubert’s masterpiece, Madame Bovary, is a highly moralistic story of a woman who brings about her own ruin, and Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray is a fairy tale with a childlike moral (an innocent young man, led astray, ultimately gets his come-uppance).

Although by 1900, when Kim was written, there was already an enormous, an incomprehensibly huge variety of fictions, ranging from pulp Westerns, horror, fantasy and sensation stories, countless types of plays, operettas and music hall skits, all the way through to the subtlety and sophistication of a Henry James novel – but deep down, almost all these fictions operated within this framework of moral meaning.

It’s very hard to escape the prison-house of morality. It’s almost impossible for us to stop judging on a strongly moral basis, the characters and storylines in all the cultural products we’re faced with, whether plays and TV shows, films and books.

Back to Said’s book and I would suggest that his entire critique of ‘Orientalism’ is itself based on an pretty traditional moral claim, that the Orientalists were (and are) being unfair in negatively stereotyping ‘Orientals’ in order to justify conquering and ruling them and that, in order to be more fair, in order to create a fairer, more just world, we need to overturn these prejudices and biases. Despite Said’s awesome display of erudition and sustained attempts to write like a Parisian intellectual it is, in the end, an almost playground level of moral thinking.

3. Adventure fiction depends on stereotypes

Thirdly, Kim is an adventure story for boys. To treat it as an academic study of Indian society and find fault with it, to accuse it of promoting racist stereotypes, is surely as inappropriate as accusing Star Wars of promoting scientific errors or pointing out that the Sherlock Holmes stories rely on pretty improbable coincidences.

They are adventure stories, they are entertainments, and these genres, by definition, simplify things – they rely on simple plots, simple motivations, simple psychology and simple characters.

I agree with Said’s broad point, that Kim could be seen as just one cog in a vast interlocking cultural machine, a huge, patronising and basically racist worldview which defined ‘Orientals’ without any agreement or participation by them, which wrote their scripts for them, invented their characters for them, gave them opinions and actions and generally portrayed them in ways which, either blatantly or subtly, helped to underpin Western hegemony over ‘the Orient’. I agree with his basic point.

I’m just adding my own perspective on Said’s massive critique, which is to that it’s difficult to say anything about anything which doesn’t, at some level, rely on the generalising (what I’ve called ‘stereotyping’) qualities 1) of language itself, 2) of almost any fiction, and 3) of adventure fiction in particular.

The boy hero (Kim), the remote but authoritative father figure (Creighton), the tough assistant (Ali), the bookish colleague (Babu), the man who’s good with gadgets (Lurgan), just writing the list makes me realise how these stereotypical roles anticipate James Bond (boy hero), his father figure (M), his tough assistant (Felix Leiter), the gadget guy (Q) and so on. Lots of difference in surface detail, same underlying archetypes.

4. Kim is surprisingly unstereotypical

Mentioning the three types of simplification or stereotypicality generally found in this kind of adventure yarn helps to highlight a surprising result, which is the extent to which Kim is very much not a work of stereotypes and clichés. On the contrary, Kim tends towards the ‘literature’ end of the spectrum (as I’ve sketchily defined it above) precisely because it is unexpectedly complex, full of variegated detail, full of contradictions which surprise the reader.

Indian profusion i.e. not a simple binary

The whole purpose of Kim the novel is that it revels in the sheer profusion of Indian life, in its countless ethnic groups and religions and languages. It is littered with characters from different provinces and racial groups and religions, careers and professions.

The book contains a profusion of places – Kim is constantly on the move himself, so we directly get to see Lahore, Lucknow, Benares and Simla, Bombay, Karachi and Umballa, with smaller towns in between – but other characters refer to incidents elsewhere such as picking up the secret message left at Chotra or incidents right up on the North-West frontier, so that it (deliberately) gives the reader a sense of geographic breadth and variety.

And the text itself is absolutely packed with what feels like as many Indian phrases Kipling could cram into it, from multiple Indian languages, sometimes embedded in the narrative passages but absolutely infesting the dialogue and direct speech, almost every speech by any character including at least one native term.

My point being that Said’s repeated accusation against the Orientalist mindset is that it erected an entirely factitious binary opposition between ‘East’ and ‘West’ and ignored the complexity of actual peoples on the ground. On that axis, Kim is anti-Orientalist in the way that that hoary old binary is swamped and erased by the overwhelming complexity and confusion of races, religions, languages and characters which flood the text. At some points some characters do voice sentiments about how the white man will never understand ‘the Oriental’ etc but the characters who say that are implied to be in error, lesser characters, obtuse white characters, who are outside the marvellous world Kim inhabits.

Anti-white passages

Kipling very obviously plays with stereotypes, sometimes giving us what we expect, sometimes playing against expectation. Thus if he was directly and simply the imperial propagandist that critics make him out to be, then all the British characters would be good and a representative of Britain’s state religion, the Church of England, would be expected to be a shining beacon of morality. Instead Kipling goes out of his way to portray the Anglican chaplain as both physically and morally thin and pinched, unimaginative and bigoted.

Elsewhere British officials are routinely criticised by Indian characters for being ignorant, bad administrators, quick to show off their knowledge of horses (when they don’t know what they’re talking about), or easily hoodwinked (like the officer in charge of police searching the train for agent E23 in chapter 12) precisely because they rely on racial stereotypes, predictable narrow expectations, and so can be played.

Babu Hurree Chunder Mookerjee unexpectedly complex

Admittedly, the head of ‘the Department’, Colonel Creighton, is depicted as a ramrod-backed beacon of intelligence and discretion. It’s not difficult to see that he is a kind of moral foundation to the narrative whose efficiency and integrity justifies British imperial rule as just and wise and fair – but that’s precisely why he’s kept in the background, playing a surprisingly peripheral role.

More typical of a Kipling character playing against type is the Babu Hurree Chunder Mookerjee. Babu is a form of address for a Brahmin but by 1900 it had become a term of abuse by the English, suggesting an Indian who’s had some Western education, and aspires to Western cultural values, but falls hopelessly and embarrassingly short.

And indeed, to begin with, this is how Mookerjee is presented, with Kipling playing his half-educated speech, his references to European thinkers he only part understands and so on, for laughs. And, in our body-image-conscious times it may be worth pointing out the Babu is presented as fat with big fat wobbly legs, a back like jelly, and that this also is, initially, part of the barrage of mockery he’s subjected to. But, as the story progresses, Kim, and the reader, slowly come to respect his abilities more and more, until he plays a hero’s part in accompanying the Russian and French spies through the mountains to Simla, despite them abusing and beating him, putting up with all that and the threat of worse, to ensure that they are chaperoned into the heart of the Raj’s security setup where they can be safely monitored. Kim explicitly says that, completely contrary to the stereotypical figure of the fat cowardly Bengali Babu, Mookerjee is fat, and continues to make comically half-educated remarks, but is in fact deeply brave and, what matters most to Kipling, dutiful.

Indian piety easily trumps Western religion

To go back to the chaplain, it’s not just Bennett who is held up to scrutiny and found wanting, it is his entire religion, the religion of Westerners, Christianity itself, which is fairly regularly mentioned and 100% of the time seen as inferior to Indian religions.

Take the fight with the foreign spies in the mountains, where the Russian’s supposed Christianity is shown to be a poor, thin, hypocritical thing which allows a bully to beat up an old man, compared to a) the superstitious but infinitely more ‘moral’ response of the mountain coolies or shikarri for whom hitting a holy man is inconceivable blasphemy, and b) the genuine depth of the lama’s Buddhist faith. The way the lama has a moment of weakness before insisting on ordering the coolies not to go back down and take revenge on the two foreigners (i.e. shoot them) has genuine psychological veracity and shows a moral depth and principle absent in almost all the white characters.

In praise of Buddhism

And, to stay on religion, there is, of course, the end of the novel which, in a startling move, appears to authenticate and validate Buddhist belief. Kipling in all seriousness describes the lama’s moment of nirvana when he feels his soul leaving his body, leaving the constraints of time and place, and touching the Great Soul of the Universe. Christianity is nowhere to be seen. The lama’s religious epiphany is profoundly moving and believable.

A review of these four or five elements explains why I don’t see how a fiction which mocks the British authorities, mocks British religion and throws itself wholeheartedly behind the wisdom and restraint and morality and religious superiority of India’s native peoples, can, on the face of it, be described as simply upholding British hegemony. It may well, eventually, deep down, be premised on British rule in India, but in a rather more subtle and interesting way, by means of its fundamental assumptions.

The cure

The cure for generalisations from all sides i.e. stereotyping, whether racial, sexist and so on, is to be as specific as you can be, about individuals, about situations, and about texts.

That’s why I pay such close attention to the exact wording of texts and quote so extensively from works I’m reviewing. The more precise you are to the actual words of the text, the more enjoyable, strange, often unexpected and pleasurable the experience. The further you move away from the text, the more likely you are to start generalising, the more likely you are to give in to moralising generalisations. In Wilde’s day the authorities criticised his books for being ‘decadent’ and ‘corrupting’ (which, in fact, in one sense, they were). In 2023 woke academics criticise books for being ‘sexist’ and ‘racist’ (which, in fact, they often are). Different terminology, but the same impulse to judge.

Doesn’t mean that all of these books, old and new, beneath whatever elements we disapprove of, don’t also contain interesting and enjoyable uses of language and the entire point of literature, in my view, is to entertain the widest possible range of human thoughts, feelings, characters, situations, thoughts and so on. It’s about being open. Which is why I’m against people who say ban this or rewrite that. Whether authoritarian regimes or revisionist academics or anxious publishers, they are against openness. They are on the side of closing down.

At the highest level of generalisation, when you are furthest removed from the strangeness and unpredictability of the text, you get lazy journalists or literary critics simply dismissing Kipling as ‘racist’ or ‘orientalist’, without knowing or caring for the complex interplay of linguistic elements in his actual texts. But it’s precisely the interplay and unexpectednesses which those kind of people ignore in order to make their political points, which make literature worthwhile.

In fictions, characters stereotype each other

The modern author has to be careful not to offend against modern concerns about gender or racial stereotyping. But their characters can. Fictional characters are allowed to think and talk like actual people actually do. And so part of the enjoyable complexity of Kim is that much of the ‘stereotyping’ where it goes on, isn’t done by the author but by the characters, and on the whole by the Indians themselves. They come from a huge and diverse country where, as in many nineteenth century countries, people were far more attached to their family, their clan, their religion and their region than they were to any notion of the ‘nation state’. And so part of the fun of the story is listening to characters taking each other down and knowingly, comically, satirically making generalisations about this or that regional or religious or business or gender type.

I think it’s still alright for us in England, in 2023, to take the mickey out of Scotsmen for liking a wee dram, or Yorkshiremen for being boomingly convinced of their county’s superiority, or Welshmen for being peevish, or bankers for being braying Hoorays, Germans for being Teutonically efficient, the French for shrugging their shoulders and saying ‘Bouf!’, and so on. Same here, a hundred years ago, in India, where certain ethnic or regional groups were associated with certain characteristics, and part of the enjoyment of the book is reading about their views about each other, done with a pleasurable absence of modern self consciousness, done, on the whole, for comedic ends.

I’ve no idea whether any of it is ‘true’, I’ve only a shaky grasp who any of these people are or what part of India they come from, but the use of stereotypes by the characters themselves, between themselves, is one more way the text works to make the reader feel part of that world. Bergson famously said there’s something robotic about comedy, about the predictability of character types and behaviour, and so the deployment of so many types, is not a negative thing: it’s comic and welcoming.

Pathans

‘Trust a snake before an harlot, and an harlot before a Pathan.’

Mahbub Ali is a Pathan and depicted as being quick to anger but quick also to forgive. His Pathan-ness is frequently referred to as making him a certain type.

Jats

He picked up his lathi – a five-foot male-bamboo ringed with bands of polished iron – and flourished it in the air. ‘The Jats are called quarrelsome, but that is not true. Except when we are crossed, we are like our own buffaloes.’

Sikhs

One advantage of the Secret Service is that it has no worrying audit. That Service is ludicrously starved, of course, but the funds are administered by a few men who do not call for vouchers or present itemised accounts. Mahbub’s eyes lighted with almost a Sikh’s love of money. (p.148)

Just a few examples of the many generalisations the author, or his characters, make about the many, many races which lived in Victorian India.

The Irish

And don’t forget that the single ‘race’ which Kipling makes most generalisations about isn’t Indian at all, but much closer to home, the Irish, or ‘the Rishti’, as Kim puts it.

It is a central fact of the entire narrative that Kim is not of English descent, but of the much more interesting and colourful Irish descent. ‘Colourful’ because there was a widespread view at the time (and still is to this day, among many Irish people I know or see in the media) that the Irish are more passionate, uninhibited, more in touch with their feelings (as we’ve said since the 1960s) than the uptight, emotionally constipated English, all vicars and maiden aunts.

This binary comes over very starkly in the contrast between the quick-to-judgement, unsympathetic English chaplain, Bennett, and the much more sympathetic and kindly Irish Catholic priest, Father Victor, a difference Bennett himself is uneasily aware of:

It was noticeable that whenever the Church of England dealt with a human problem she was very likely to call in the Church of Rome. Bennett’s official abhorrence of ‘the Scarlet Woman’ [derogatory Protestant term for the Catholic Church] and all her ways was only equalled by his private respect for Father Victor.

The word ‘Irish’ occurs nine times in the text:

Kim followed [the lama] like a shadow. What he had overheard excited him wildly. This man was entirely new to all his experience, and he meant to investigate further, precisely as he would have investigated a new building or a strange festival in Lahore city. The lama was his trove, and he purposed to take possession. Kim’s mother had been Irish, too.

Which means he was Irish on his father and mother’s side as well, the implication being that he is curious, excitable, imaginative, and prepared to cross boundaries and break rules as a purely English boy probably wouldn’t. Of his secret meeting with Creighton:

Kim flipped the wad of folded paper into the air, and it fell in the path beside the man [Creighton], who put his foot on it as a gardener came round the corner. When the servant passed he picked it up, dropped a rupee – Kim could hear the clink – and strode into the house, never turning round. Swiftly Kim took up the money; but for all his training, he was Irish enough by birth to reckon silver the least part of any game. What he desired was the visible effect of action.

He is up for what Irish people still, I believe, call the craic, the fun, the action, the excitement. Viewed from one perspective, Kim can be seen as a kind of embodiment of the craic, always up for naughtiness, scampishness, kicking against restraints and sensibleness but, in his own way, deeply reliable and dutiful. Oh and hot-headed, as in the climactic scene where the Russian spy hits Kim’s beloved lama.

Before Kim could ward him off, the Russian struck the old man full on the face. Next instant he was rolling over and over downhill with Kim at his throat. The blow had waked every unknown Irish devil in the boy’s blood, and the sudden fall of his enemy did the rest.

As it happens the last mention of ‘Irish’ in the text, presumably deliberately, collates both the Irish and the Oriental in Kim’s make-up. After the fight they all hide in the forest.

They [the coolies] arranged and re-arranged their artless little plans for another hour, while Kim shivered with cold and pride. The humour of the situation tickled the Irish and the Oriental in his soul.

Asiatic, Oriental and the East

Lastly, a detailed look at the most ‘stereotyping’ or words, the key words Said highlights in his study. I collected mentions of these key words – ‘Asiatic’ occurs 15 times, ‘Oriental’ 15 times, ‘the East’ 9 times – to see what Kipling’s use of them shows, if anything.

Asiatic

Asiatics do not wink when they have outmanoeuvred an enemy, but as Mahbub Ali cleared his throat, tightened his belt, and staggered forth under the early morning stars, he came very near to it.

Kim dived into the happy Asiatic disorder which, if you only allow time, will bring you everything that a simple man needs.

He threw the blanket off his face, and raised himself suddenly with the terrible, bubbling, meaningless yell of the Asiatic roused by nightmare. ‘Urr-urr-urr-urr! Ya-la-la-la-la! Narain! The churel! The churel!’

A very few white people, but many Asiatics, can throw themselves into a mazement as it were by repeating their own names over and over again to themselves, letting the mind go free upon speculation as to what is called personal identity.

E23, with relaxed mouth, gave himself up to the opium that is meat, tobacco, and medicine to the spent Asiatic.

The Englishman is not, as a rule, familiar with the Asiatic

Kissing is practically unknown among Asiatics, which may have been the reason that she leaned back with wide-open eyes and a face of panic.

She brewed drinks, in some mysterious Asiatic equivalent to the still-room—drenches that smelt pestilently and tasted worse.

I’m not really qualified to say whether any of these passages are ‘racist’ or not. Some of them seem pretty factual: when I went down into the streets of Bombay I was overwhelmed by what seemed to me to be wild disorder; as to the meditation, my impression is that this is something Indians, Tibetans et al brought up in the tradition do better than Westerners who learn it late. It seems pretty reasonable to suggest that Englishmen are not, on the whole, familiar with Asians (though these days, I appreciate, many millions of Englishmen are Asians.)

What immediately struck me about them is how much Kipling wants to be regarded as an expert. They seem less about asserting the West’s ‘hegemony’ over Indian subjects, than asserting Kipling’s hegemony over this subject matter. It sounds more to me like an expert flourishing his credentials and bolstering his brand. To go a bit further in this direction, it’s almost like his flaunting of his expertise amounts to a sales pitch.

Oriental

Those Kings’ Prime Ministers were seriously annoyed and took steps, after the Oriental fashion. They suspected, among many others, the bullying, red-bearded horse-dealer whose caravans ploughed through their fastnesses belly-deep in snow. At least, his caravan that season had been ambushed and shot at twice on the way down.

That would have been a fatal blot on Kim’s character if Mahbub had not known that to others, for his own ends or Mahbub’s business, Kim could lie like an Oriental.

Now and again a night train roared along the metals within twenty feet of him; but he had all the Oriental’s indifference to mere noise, and it did not even weave a dream through his slumber.

The gentlemen were delighted. One was visibly French, the other Russian, but they spoke English not much inferior to the Babu’s. They begged his kind offices. Their native servants had gone sick at Leh. They had hurried on because they were anxious to bring the spoils of the chase to Simla ere the skins grew moth-eaten. They bore a general letter of introduction (the Babu salaamed to it orientally) to all Government officials.

These are a bit more pejorative, aren’t they? Kipling generalises that ‘Orientals’:

  • take revenge in a violent and underhand manner
  • are proficient liars

No fewer than four of them focus on ‘the Oriental’s’ poor sense of time or lack of sense of urgency, the frantic time obsession which hag-rides so many Westerners to this day:

Dynamite was milky and innocuous beside that report of C25; and even an Oriental, with an Oriental’s views of the value of time, could see that the sooner it was in the proper hands the better.

He [the lama] stood in a gigantic stone hall [of Lahore railway station] paved, it seemed, with the sheeted dead third-class passengers who had taken their tickets overnight and were sleeping in the waiting-rooms. All hours of the twenty-four are alike to Orientals, and their passenger traffic is regulated accordingly.

[When Kim tries to run away from the college] Trousers and jacket crippled body and mind alike so he abandoned the project and fell back, Oriental-fashion, on time and chance.

Swiftly – as Orientals understand speed – with long explanations, with abuse and windy talk, carelessly, amid a hundred checks for little things forgotten, the untidy camp broke up and led the half-dozen stiff and fretful horses along the Kalka road in the fresh of the rain-swept dawn.

On the other hand it’s important that this sentiment:

‘My experience is that one can never fathom the Oriental mind. Now, Kimball, I wish you to tell this man what I say word for word.’

Is put into the mouth of the Anglican vicar, Bennett, who is portrayed as narrow-minded and bigoted. Similarly, another generalisation about ‘Orientals’ is put into the mouth of the Russian spy, talking about Mookerjee’s half-educated character:

‘He represents in petto India in transition – the monstrous hybridism of East and West,’ the Russian replied. ‘It is we who can deal with Orientals.’

This is the wrong kind of generalising; or generalising by someone who has not acquired the experience and authority for such a statement. Which is made evident when the Russian makes the scandalous blasphemy of grabbing for the lama’s diagram and then punching him in the face when he resists, resulting in Kim jumping on him, rolling him downhill, smashing his head against a rock and kicking him in the nuts. Plus the spies’ loss of their entire eight months’ worth of reconnaissance work. Quite clearly, the narrative is telling us, only some people are allowed to make these kinds of sweeping generalisations. People in the know. Throughout his life Kipling bridled at the kind of people who made sweeping generalisations about British India or imperialism without ever having stepped outside Britain. Nothing spurred him to anger quicker than ignorant generalisations.

Finally this, the last instance of the word in the book is, surely, admiring.

He [Mukkerjee] stowed the entire trove [the spies’ paperwork] about his body, as only Orientals can.

How cool is that, the ability to stash stuff in the capacious folds of your Indian outfit. How much more interesting than a jacket with pockets.

The East

The most frequent use of ‘the East’ comes attached to the idea, already mentioned, that life is slower, people less time-harried, in the East than the alienated West. Two instances here combine with the three cited above, to make it Kipling’s most frequent generalisation (out of these three keywords, anyway):

Ticket-collecting is a slow business in the East, where people secrete their tickets in all sorts of curious places.

The Oswal, at peace with mankind, carried the message into the darkness behind him, and the easy, uncounted Eastern minutes slid by; for the lama was asleep in his cell, and no priest would wake him.

As to Kipling’s attribution of distinctive behaviours to the East, I’ve no idea whether this is true:

The old man was off his pony in an instant, and they embraced as do father and son in the East.

The old lady had retreated behind her curtains, but mixed most freely in the talk, her servants arguing with and contradicting her as servants do throughout the East.

I personally have come across a love of bartering in India and Pakistan which you don’t find at all in England

‘I sell and – I buy.’ Mahbub took a four-anna piece out of his belt and held it up. ‘Eight!’ said Kim, mechanically following the huckster instinct of the East.

And it seems reasonable to describe the many scents and perfumes found in shops and temples:

Kim was conscious that beyond the circle of light the room was full of things that smelt like all the temples of all the East. A whiff of musk, a puff of sandal-wood, and a breath of sickly jessamine-oil caught his opened nostrils.

Last word. Kim and the lama arrive at a new village, where:

There they told their tale – a new one each evening so far as Kim was concerned – and there were they made welcome, either by priest or headman, after the custom of the kindly East.

Some readers could take this as patronising and racist. But I read it as admiring and complimentary. It is redolent of kindness and the spirit of love – love of people and wonders and life and adventures –which, in my opinion, above everything else, suffuses this marvellous, life-affirming novel.


Credit

Kim was serialised in Cassell’s Magazine from January to November 1901, and first published in book form by Macmillan & Co. Ltd in October 1901. All references are to the 2002 Norton Critical Edition edited by Zohreh T. Sullivan.

Related links

Related reviews