Martin Cruz Smith reviews

Martin Cruz Smith (1942 to 2025) was a prolific author of mystery and suspense fiction, publishing over 30 novels. He was best known for his 11-book series featuring Russian investigator Arkady Renko, who was introduced in 1981 with ‘Gorky Park’ and last appeared in ‘Hotel Ukraine’. ‘Gorky Park’ was made into a successful Hollywood movie starring William Hurt.

List of my reviews

Arkady Renko series

Standalone novels

List with plot summaries

Arkady Renko series

1981 Gorky Park – Introducing Russian/Soviet detective Arkady Renko, and the case of the three faceless corpses found in Gorky Park, in the heart of Moscow, who turn out to be victims of John Osborne, the slick American smuggler of priceless live sables.

1989 Polar Star – In the first Arkady Renko novel, Renko had clashed with his own superiors in Moscow. Now he is forced to flee across Russia, turning up some years later, working on a Soviet fish factory ship in the Bering Sea. Here, once his former profession becomes known, he is called on by the captain to solve the mystery of a female crew member whose body is caught in one of the ship’s own fishing nets. Who murdered her? And why?

1992 Red Square – After inadvertently helping the Russian security services in the previous book, Arkady is restored to his job as investigator in Moscow. It is 1991 and the Soviet Union is on the brink of dissolution so his bosses are happy to despatch the ever-troublesome Arkady to Munich, then on to Berlin, to pursue his investigations into an art-smuggling operation – to be reunited with Irina (who he fell in love with in Gorky Park) – before returning for a bloody climax in Moscow set against the backdrop of the August 1991 military coup.

1999 Havana Bay – Some years later, depressed by the accidental death of his wife, Irina, Arkady is sent to Havana, Cuba, to investigate the apparent death of his old adversary, ex-KGB officer Colonel Pribluda. He finds himself at the centre of a murderous conspiracy, in an alien society full of colourful music by day and prostitution and voodoo ceremonies by night, and forced to work closely with a tough local black policewoman, Ofelia Orosio, to uncover the conspiracy at the heart of the novel.

2004 Wolves Eat Dogs The apparent suicide of a New Russian millionaire leads Arkady to Chernobyl, the village and countryside devastated by the world’s worst nuclear accident – and it is in this bleak, haunting landscape that Arkady finds a new love and the poisonous secret behind a sequence of grisly murders.

2007 Stalin’s Ghost The odd claim that Stalin has been sighted at a Moscow metro station leads Arkady to cross swords with fellow investigator Nikolai Isakov, whose murky past as a special forces soldier in Chechnya and current bid for political office come to dominate a novel which broadens out to become an wide-ranging exploration of the toxic legacy of Russia’s dark history.

2010 Three Stations In the shortest novel in the series, Arkady solves the mystery of a ballet-obsessed serial killer, while the orphan boy he’s found himself adopting, Zhenya, has various adventures in the rundown district around Moscow’s notorious Three Stations district.

2013 Tatiana – is Tatiana Petrovna, an investigative journalist who appears to have jumped to her death from the 6th floor of her apartment block. When Arkady investigates her death he discovers a trail leading to Kaliningrad on the Baltic Coast and a huge corruption scandal which will involve him in love and death amid the sand dunes of the atmospheric ‘Curonian Split’

Standalone novels

1986 Stallion Gate – Set in 1945 at Los Alamos, during the development of the first atomic bomb, Stallion’s Gate blends real historical figures, namely J. Robert Oppenheimer, with fictional characters, namely Sergeant Joe Peña, a Native American soldier, former boxer, and jazz pianist, recruited from military prison to work as Oppenheimer’s driver and secretly spy on him for security chief Captain Augustino. The novel contrasts the instrumental, western mindset of the physicist and the army, with the values of Native American culture.

2002 Tokyo Station – Set in Japan, during three key periods — 1920s Tokyo, 1937 Nanking, and 1941 Tokyo— culminating just before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. The novel covers Harry Niles, an American raised in Japan – con man, nightclub owner, fixer, and spy – as he moves through its criminal underworld and high society. As war approaches, pressure intensifies: enemies close in, alliances shift, and escape becomes urgent!

Frederick Forsyth reviews

Frederick Forsyth (1938 to 2025) was an English novelist and journalist. He’s best known for the string of meticulously researched popular thrillers he wrote in a 30-year career between the early 70s and the early Noughties. He wrote 14 novels in total, none of them as good as the debut, his first and best novel ‘The Day of the Jackal’. By 2006 he had sold more than 70 million books in more than 30 languages and a dozen of his works had been adapted to film, again none as atmospheric and iconic as the brilliant movie version of ‘Day of the Jackal’, starring Edward Fox.

Before becoming a novelist Forsyth was a journalist for Reuters, then the BBC, and did important coverage of the Biafra War in Nigeria. This journalistic training meant that even when his novels suffer from ridiculous plots and paper-thin characters, they still contain a lot of fascinating information, partly about guns and hardware, but mostly about the security services, armies or terrorist groups (for example, al-Qaeda) that they’re set among.

1971 The Day of the Jackal It is 1963. An international assassin is hired by right-wing paramilitary organisation, the OAS, to assassinate French President, Charles de Gaulle. The novel follows the meticulous preparations of the assassin, code-name Chacal, and the equally thorough attempts of the ‘best detective in France’, Commissaire Lebel, to track him down. Surely one of the most thoroughly researched and gripping thrillers ever written.

1972 The Odessa File It is 1963. German journalist Peter Miller goes on a quest to track down an evil former SS commandant and gets caught up in a high-level Nazi plot to help Egypt manufacture long-range missiles to attack and destroy Israel.

1974 The Dogs of War City magnate Sir James Manson hires seasoned mercenary Cat Shannon to overthrow the dictator of the (fictional) West African country of Zangaro, so that Manson’s mining company can get its hands on a mountain virtually made of platinum. This very long novel almost entirely amounts to a mind-bogglingly detailed manual on how to organise and fund a military coup.

1975 The Shepherd A neat, slick Christmas ghost story about a post-war RAF pilot whose instruments black out over the North Sea but who is guided to safety by an apparently phantom Mosquito, flown by a pilot who disappeared without trace during the war.

1979 The Devil’s Alternative A Cold War, geopolitical thriller confidently describing machinations at the highest levels of the White House, Downing Street and a Soviet Politburo riven by murderous factions and which is plunged into emergency by a looming grain shortage in Russia. A plot to overthrow the reforming leader of the Soviet Union evolves into a nailbiting crisis when the unexpected hijacking of an oil supertanker by fanatical Ukrainian terrorists looks like it might lead to the victory of the hawks in the Politburo, who are seeking a Russian invasion of Western Europe.

1984 The Fourth Protocol Handsome, former public schoolboy, Paratroop Regiment soldier and MI5 agent John Preston, first of all uncovers the ‘mole’ working in MI5, and then tracks down the fiendish Soviet swine who is assembling a tactical nuclear device in Suffolk with a view to vaporising a nearby US Air Force base. the baddies’ plan is to rally anti-nuclear opinion against the Conservatives in the forthcoming General Election, ensuring a Labour Party victory and then (part two of the plan) replace the moderate Labour leader with an (unspecified) hard-Left figure who would leave NATO and effectively hand the UK over to the Russians. A lunatic, right-wing fantasy turned into a ‘novel’.

1989 The Negotiator Taciturn Clint Eastwood-lookalike Quinn (no first name, just ‘Quinn’) is the best negotiator in the business, so when the President’s son is kidnapped Quinn is pulled out of quiet retirement in a Spanish village and sent to negotiate his release. What he doesn’t realise is the kidnap is just the start of a bigger conspiracy to overthrow the President himself!

1994 The Fist of God A journalistic account of Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the ensuing US-led ‘Desert Storm’ operation to throw him out, complete with insider accounts of the Western military and intelligence services and lavish descriptions of scores of hi-tech weaponry. Against this backdrop is set the story of one man – dark-skinned, Arabic-speaking Mike Martin who goes undercover posing as an Arab, first in occupied Kuwait, then – even more perilously – in Baghdad itself, before undertaking a final mission to locate and assist the destruction of Saddam’s atom bomb (!) and the Supergun designed to fire it at the Allies. Simultaneously gripping in detail and preposterous in outline.

1996 Icon Hot shot CIA agent Jason Monk is brought out of retirement to foil a fascist coup in post-communist Russia in a novel which starts out embedded in fascinating contemporary history of Russia but quickly escalates to heights of absurdity, capped by an ending in which the Russian people are persuaded to install a distant cousin of our very own Queen as the new Tsar of All The Russias! Sure.

2003 Avenger A multi-stranded narrative which weaves together the Battle of Britain, the murder of a young American aid worker in Bosnia, the death of a young woman in America, before setting the tracking down of a Serbian war criminal to South America against a desperate plot to assassinate Osama bin Laden. The least far-fetched and most gripping Forsyth thriller for years.

2006 The Afghan Ex-SAS man Colonel Mike Martin, hero of The Fist of God, is called out of retirement to impersonate an Afghan inmate of Guantanamo Bay in order to infiltrate Al Qaeda and prevent their next terrorist attack. Quite a gripping thriller with an amazing amount of detailed background information about Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Islamic terrorism and so on.

2010 The Cobra Two lead characters from Avenger, Paul Devereaux and Cal Dexter, are handed the task of wiping out the illegal cocaine trade on the authority of Barack Obama himself. Which leads to an awesome display of Forsyth’s trademark factual research, scores of pages building up a comprehensive picture of the drugs industry, and to the detailed description of the multi-stranded operation which almost succeeds, until lily-livered politicians step in to halt it.

2013 The Kill List Another one about Islamic terrorism. The Preacher, who has been posting jihadi sermons online and inspiring a wave of terrorist assassinations, is tracked down and terminated by US marine Christopher Carson, aka The Tracker, with a fascinating side plot about Somali piracy thrown in. Like all Forsyth’s novels it’s packed with interesting background information but unlike many of his later novels, this one becomes genuinely gripping at the end.

Short stories

1982 No Comebacks Ten short stories combining Forsyth’s strengths of gripping technical description and clear fluent prose alongside his weaknesses of cardboard characters and improbable plots – but the big surprise is how many of them are clearly comic and satirical in intention.

1991 The Deceiver A set of four self-contained, long short stories relating exciting incidents in the career of Sam McCready, senior officer in the British Intelligence Service, as he approaches retirement. More gripping than the previous two novels, with the fourth and final story being genuinely funny, in the style of an Ealing comedy starring Alec Guinness.

2001 The Veteran Five very readable short stories: The Veteran, The Art of the Matter, The Miracle, The Citizen, and Whispering Wind – well engineered, sleek and almost completely devoid of real human psychology. Nonetheless, the vigilante twist of The Veteran is imaginatively powerful, and the long final story about a cowboy who wakes from a century-long magic sleep to be reunited with a reincarnation of his lost love has the eerie, primal power of a yarn by Rider Haggard.

Autobiography

2015 The Outsider – At age 76 Forsyth writes his autobiography in the form of a series of vignettes, anecdotes and tall tales displaying his characteristic briskness and dry humour. What an extraordinary life he’s led, and what simple, boyish fun this book is.

Michael Kenna: Shin Shin @ the Photographers’ Gallery

The Photographers’ Gallery Print Room

The Print Room is downstairs at the Photographers’ Gallery, next to the shop. Admission is FREE and if you’re visiting one of the paid exhibitions upstairs, you should always pop down to the basement for her they have rotating displays by one or other of the 50 or so noted photographers which the gallery represents.

It’s a commercial operation and so the large and beautifully made prints are for sale, generally for a hefty price. Currently they’re showing a dozen or so lovely black and white photos by English-born photographer Michael Kenna which start at £1,975 + VAT (£2,370).

Flock of Red Crown Cranes, Tsurui, Hokkaido, Japan by Michael Kenna (2005) Courtesy of the artist and The Photographers’ Gallery

Michael Kenna

Michael Kenna was born in England in 1953. He studied at a seminary school as a boy, intending to become a priest, and his early encounters with ritual and faith left a lasting appreciation for mystery, doubt and the unseen. In his mid-twenties he moved to the United States.

Over five decades, Kenna has developed a distinctive visual language – a dialogue between dramatic chiaroscuro and the quiet minimalism of Japan, where he has regularly photographed since 1987.

Alley of Trees, Damyang, Jeollanamdo, South Korea by Michael Kenna (2012) Courtesy of the artist and The Photographers’ Gallery

Shin Shin

The show is titled Shin Shin which is a Japanese onomatopoeia that describes the quietness or silence of falling snow. This sensory phrase captures the meditative stillness that runs through Michael Kenna’s work, and his reverence for the natural world.

Many of Kenna’s images are made at dawn or at night, often using long exposures, some lasting up to ten hours. Primarily working with a 120 mm analogue camera and printing each image by hand in the darkroom, he creates luminous silver gelatin prints that he describes as, ‘an oasis, a calm place of rest, a catalyst for imagination’.

In his black and white landscapes, snow becomes a veil that softens the world. Through nature’s quiet transformation and the precision of his practice, Kenna invites reflection on what lies beyond what we can see, know, or touch.

An opinion

Obviously they’re all very beautiful but personally, I liked the ones where the subject was placed symmetrically in the middle of the frame. Very calm and pleasing.

Royal Balcony, Peterhof, Russia by Michael Kenna (1999) Courtesy of the artist and The Photographers’ Gallery

But I noticed that having soaked up one of the nicely centred compositions added piquancy and edge when you turned to look at one of the deliberately non-symmetrical images. Having settled into a calm Zen state based on symmetry, my mind was then slightly knocked askew by the off-centre images. That they played off each other. That, in this quiet, calm, subterranean space, they set up a kind of resonance between the two types of picture, like the very faint, distant ringing of bells…

Wanaka Lake Tree, Study 2, Otago, New Zealand by Michael Kenna (2013) Courtesy of the artist and The Photographers’ Gallery


Related links

Related reviews

Putin’s Wars: from Chechnya to Ukraine by Mark Galeotti (2022)

This is a very military history. Seeing as it also covers the decade before Vladimir Putin came to power, and that it is very focused on the minutiae of the Russian Army, Navy and Air Force, as well as details of the various reforms and reorganisations they have undergone during the Putin years, the book could more accurately have been titled ‘A History of The Russian Army, Navy and Air Force, 1990 to 2022’.

Military units

Here’s an example of what I mean by military minutiae. This is Galeotti’s description of the Russian army’s invasion of Chechnya:

From the north Major General Konstantin Pulikovsky led a mechanised force drawn from the 81st and 276th Motor Rifle regiments and a battalion of the 131st Independent Motor Rifle Brigade. From the west Major General Valery Petruk led elements of the 19th Motor Rifle Division supported by two regiments and two battalions of paratroopers along the railway tracks to seize the central station and then advance on the presidential palace. From the east, the 129th Motor Rifle Regiment and a battalion each of the 98th and 104th Airborne Divisions under Lieutenant Colonel Nikolai Staskov would make a similar thrust along the railway line to Lenin Square in the heart of the city and from there take the bridges across the Sunzha river. From the north-east, Rokhlin himself would lead elements of the 255th and 33rd Motor Rifle Regiments and the 66th Reconnaissance Battalion of the 20th Motor Rifle Division to take the Central Hospital complex, while units of the 76th and 106th Airborne Division would secure the Lenin and Sheripov oil processing factories and chemical works to prevent the rebels from destroying these crucial economic assets. (p.61)

The accounts of all the wars feature lots of paragraphs like this, precise accounts of which units under which commanders went where and how they fared in the fighting.

There’s also a lot of analysis of organisational and administrative reforms from between the wars, as Galeotti gives detailed accounts of the attempts of successive Russian defence ministers, most notably Anatoly Serdyukov and then Sergei Shogai, to reform the Russian army against opposition and inertia from the military high command.

Hence the chapter titled ‘New Look Army’ (pages 142 to 152), which gives us detail of how the Defence Minister and head of the general staff implemented the 2010 plan for a new-look Russian army, half the size of its predecessor but better equipped and better trained, with better retention of conscripts, fewer but better quality senior officers.

Galeotti explains, with maps, the reorganisation of the army into half a dozen military districts, gives a detailed breakdown of what a new-look motorised rifle brigade consisted of (3,800 officers and men) plus a list of all its components (including 1 nuclear, biological and chemical company) and so on. And a similar level of description of the new-look air force and navy, followed by an organogram showing the chain of military command starting with the president and working down.

And then the last 90 or so pages of the original edition of this book (before he added a new chapter about the Ukraine War), pages 229 to 310, present a very detailed review of the current state of all Russia’s fighting forces, army, navy and air forces, along with special forces, paratroopers and black berets, nuclear weapons and so on, as of the time of writing (April 2022).

In this long final section the book turns into a version of ‘Janes Fighting Ships’ only about all aspects of the Russian fighting machine, giving mind-numbing details of the speed, size, range, design and latest versions of a wide range of military kit, from machine guns (the AK12 to replace the ageing AK74) to its sole aircraft carrier (the Admiral Kuznetsov), along with equally excessive detail of each service’s organisational structure, divisions, brigades and so on and so on. Take the opening of the Spetsnaz section:

The Spetsnaz comprise seven regular brigades of various sizes, in total constituting perhaps 19 battalion-size units called Independent Special Designation Detachments (OOSN) each with around 500 personnel. The relatively small 22nd Brigade has just two OOSN, the 173rd and 411th, for example, while the large 14th Brigade… (p.292)

And so very much on, for page after page after page of excruciating detail.

I was looking for a book about the geopolitics of Putin’s Wars and that’s certainly here, attached to his fairly brisk accounts of each conflict, and when he summarises it, Galeotti is very good. But his accounts of the political background to each conflict, and even the wars themselves, take second place to his forensic analysis of Russian fighting forces and how they have changed and evolved since 1990.

Military biographies

As for the key political and military players, as the book trundled on I realised Galeotti was devoting quite a lot of time to them. All the key players in the 30-year period of the Russian army which he covers are given potted biographies. Putin is the most obvious one, along with sometime prime minister Dmitry Medvedev, but all the defence ministers, the key generals in each of the wars, and the leaders of the respective nationalist or independence uprisings, all are given a half-page potted biography (for example, the extended profile of key defence minister Sergei Shogai on pages 155 to 159).

Slowly this builds up into a sort of indirect social history, because all of them grew up in the ’60s, ’70s or ’80s, their life stories include snapshots of their lives and careers during the late Cold War, the Afghan War, the chaos of the Yeltsin years and so on. It isn’t a collective biography but, taken together, the many individual biographies begin to sketch out a network of real lives, and so start to give a feel for the institutional life of the last years of the Soviet Union.

The 1990s

For Russia the 1990s were a decade of chaos at home and humiliating conflicts abroad. The army almost fell apart amid the chaos following the end of the Soviet Union and economic collapse: stories of soldiers reduced to begging in the streets and even dying of malnutrition. In February 1991 the Warsaw Pact, which had been the West’s bogeyman since its inception in 1955, was formally disbanded.

Prime example of the chaos was how nationalist President Boris Yeltsin inherited a Duma packed with communists who blocked his every move, the standoff escalating to a crisis in October 1994 when pro-communist crowds seized TV channels and the Duma building, which prompted Yeltsin, on 4 October 1993, to send in the army who shelled their own parliament building, starting a fire which ended up gutting it. Like some chaotic Third World country.

Putin was manoeuvred into power by the KGB and other forces who wanted social and political stability after a decade of chaos under Yeltsin. As you’d expect, there are pages detailing Putin’s non-descript career, how he came over as loyal, reliable and dependable to a series of powerful men, until shadowy forces in the KGB and military helped broker the deal whereby Putin was nominated by Yeltsin to be his successor as president, on condition that he passed an act of immunity freeing Yeltsin from prosecution for his umpteen acts of corruption. Putin was made president in December 1999 and his first act was to pass this immunity law for drunk Boris.

All this Russian drunkenness, chaos and corruption is amusing to read about but the point that matters is that Putin came to power determined to restore Russia’s status as a superpower. He and his sponsors wanted to Make Russia Great Again (p.169).

‘Near abroad’

Putin wants to restore the territory lost to Russia when all the other Soviet states declared independence. Galeotti quotes a Russian defence minister in 1995 talking about ‘Near abroad’, meaning the countries and territories adjacent to Russia which it dominated for over a century through its Tsarist empire, and then bossed around through the Soviet era. It’s a well enough known phrase for Wikipedia to have an article on it, defining Russia’s ‘near abroad’ as ‘the post-Soviet states (other than Russia itself) which became independent after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.’

This concept overlaps with the nationalist notion of a Greater Russia which transcends modern borders to include all the old Tsarist territories. Both of them justify Russia interfering in, invading and taking control of their neighbours.

Reuniting the Russian people

During the Soviet Union entire populations were moved around the different republics with little concern for the consequences. It didn’t matter in the borderless USSR but it became very important when all the former Soviet Republics became independent states. At a stroke no fewer than 20 million Russians found themselves stuck in ‘foreign’ countries. To put it another way, all the countries bordering Russia contain Russian minorities, sometimes quite sizeable minorities.

The most obvious examples are the large Russian-speaking communities in the Crimea and in Eastern Ukraine which gave Putin the excuse for invading both of them in 2014 but there are also vocal Russian minorities in, for example, all three Balkan states. At any moment Putin might stir them into protests and then use these protests as a pretext for invading, pretty much as Hitler invaded the Sudetenland in 1938, to reunite its protesting Germans with the Fatherland. Which is why the leaders of the Baltic states are so worried.

So Putin 1) believes Russia has total command over its sphere of influence which can be defined as 2) Greater Russia, Russia at its greatest extent under the empire and also, maybe, the Soviet Union, and 3) wants to liberate these Russian communities now in foreign countries and reunite them with the Holy Motherland.

Russian irredentism

Yet another way of describing the same thing is the term Russian irredentism:

Russian irredentism refers to territorial claims made by the Russian Federation to regions that were historically part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, which Russian nationalists regard as part of the ‘Russian world’. It seeks to create a Greater Russia by politically incorporating ethnic Russians and Russian speakers living in territories bordering Russia. This ideology has been significantly defined by the regime of Vladimir Putin, who has governed the country since 1999. It is linked to Russian neo-imperialism.

Insofar as all the old republics of the Soviet Union are now independent nation states, the Putin Doctrine represents a permanent threat to peace in Europe.

Comparison with Hitler

In many ways it’s like the situation of the German people after World War One. When the victorious Allies imposed the punitive Treaty of Versailles on defeated Germany they redrew the map of Europe so that no fewer than seven million Germans found themselves stuck in countries outside Germany. This was partly what Hitler was about with his popular promise to reunite all ethnic Germans in an expanded Fatherland. This, for example – its large German population – was why Hitler demanded the area known as the Sudetenland back from the state of Czechoslovakia, a nation which was only created by the Treaty of Versailles and which Hitler refused to recognise as a real country.

Putin is very close to Hitler’s way of thinking. He, Medvedev, foreign secretary Sergei Lavrov, members of his political party (United Russia), commentators and intellectuals, have all been lined up to claim that Ukraine simply isn’t a country, it has no claim to be a nation state. It was, is and always will be part of Greater Russia.

In his 2021 essay ‘On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians’, Putin referred to Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians as ‘one people’ making up a triune Russian nation. He maintained that large parts of Ukraine are historical Russian lands and claimed there is ‘no historical basis’ for the ‘idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians’.

It would be one thing if this was just the view of a particular clique or party but in fact these nationalist, neo-imperial views are very popular across Russia. That’s the real worry. That even if Putin and his entire clique were vaporised it wouldn’t change the fundamental neo-imperial irredentist mindset of the entire Russian ruling class and a large part of its population. Russia is committed to being a source of instability and conflict in Eastern Europe for the foreseeable future…

Russian paranoia

To which we must add Russian paranoia. The whole premise of the Russian forces in all services, of Russian military doctrine, of the vast amount spent on arms and men, is that everyone wants to attack and destroy Russia. All Russian officials toe the Putin line that Russia is permanently under serious threat. Former head of the FSB, Nikolai Patrusheve, is on the record as saying the United States ‘would very much like Russia not to exist as a country’ (quoted p.312). As Galeotti puts it:

We can never underestimate the paranoias and resentments of Putin and his circle… (p.307)

Paranoia is defined on Wikipedia as:

an instinct or thought process that is believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety, suspicion, or fear, often to the point of delusion and irrationality. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself i.e. ‘Everyone is out to get me’.

If it’s a mental illness or psychiatric condition then the entire Russian military-political establishment is mentally ill.

Weakness of the Russian army

However, when he came to power Putin faced a simple challenge which was the army left to the Russian Federation after the collapse of the USSR was in very poor shape and this book is very largely about the efforts of his successive defence ministers, and hand-picked senior military staff, to reform and improve it.

Early on Galeotti mentions all kinds of reasons for the Russian army’s weakness. Obvious ones were chaos, mismanagement and universal corruption. The tradition of building a mass army of over a million using reluctant conscripts. The way the conscripts were signed up in two waves, in the spring and autumn, ensured lack of overlap and consistency. Galeotti also says the Russian army has a long-standing problem because it lacks the rank of non-commissioned officer that the British army has, the rank of men who’ve risen from private, command the trust of and speak the language of the ordinary soldiers, can convert officers’ orders into do-able actions.

Another problem was the Russian army has a centuries-old tradition of hazing, dedovshchina or ‘grandfathering’. Like everything Russian this is the legitimisation of brutal bullying designed to turn raw recruits into ‘men’. But, as well as regularly actually killing them, it of course does nothing of the sort, turns no-one into ‘men, it just brutalises them, preparing them to rape, pillage and torture whatever foreign population is unlucky enough to be occupied by them.

Then there was the vast problem of out-of-date equipment. Galeotti has passages throughout the book detailing the shortcomings of all kinds of Russian military kit, from tanks to body armour. The lack of reliable radios and communications led to friendly fire incidents in all the wars he describes. Half the Russian planes and helicopters shot down in the short Georgian war (7 to 12 August 2008) were shot down by their own side.

Hence the central thread which the book comes back to again and again, which was the efforts of successive defence ministers to reform the army, navy and air force at all levels, in all ways. Maybe the book should have been titled ‘The Reform of the Russian Army 1990 to 2022′.

Bad advice

I was amused that Yeltsin was encouraged to embark on the First Chechen War (11 December 1994 to 31 August 1996) by his advisers and Minister of Defence, who assured him they would take Grozny and pacify the country in a matter of weeks, that it would be a ‘bloodless blitzkrieg’ (p.56). The Russian attack began in November 1994 and was dogged by failure of every kind – ‘The plan was doomed from the start’.

Compare and contrast the over-optimistic advice given to George W. Bush about the invasion of Iraq, ‘they’ll be welcoming us with open arms and throwing flowers’ etc.

Compare and contrast Britain’s defence staff telling Tony Blair they could easily cope with policing Basra and sending troops to Helmand Province in Afghanistan, no problem.

Compare and contrast the Russian military establishment assuring Putin they could invade Ukraine, overthrow the government and elect a Russia-friendly administration within a week.

These military advisers, eh? Maybe the beginning of wisdom is never trust anything your military advisers tell you.

The First Chechen war (December 1994 to August 1996)

The First Chechen War was a disaster for the Russian army. It has been outsmarted and outfought, even losing cities to a ramshackle guerrilla army. All the inefficiencies, brutality and corruption of the army had been put on public display. (p.67)

The Second Chechen War (August 1999 to April 2000)

This time the Russians had a better plan and knew to advance slowly, pacifying and securing territory as they went, rather than the strategy in the first was which was to race to the capital Grozny leaving all the territory outside under the control of insurgents.

The Russo-Georgian War (August 2008 Russo-Georgian War)

The underwhelming performance of the military in Georgia… (p.88)

In 2008 when mighty Russia took on tiny Georgia, more than a quarter of all the armoured vehicles deployed simply broke down before they even reached the battlefield. (p.239)

It only lasted a week but, according to Galeotti, it was a war of blunders, including the bombing of abandoned airfields, officers lost to friendly fire and advances halted by broken-down vehicles (p.120). From his point of view – concerned with the issue of military reform – this little offensive was important because it gave Shogai and Putin the ammunition they needed to push through their sweeping reforms against resistance from the Army staff.

Annexing Crimea

Crimea had been part of the Russian empire for centuries and only (rashly) given by Nikita Khrushchev to the Ukraine Soviet Republic in 1954. So it was a prime example of the Greater Russia argument, the argument that, at the chaotic collapse of the Soviet Union, many territories which had for centuries been part of Russia were abruptly included in what were suddenly newly independent nations, often against the wishes of their Russian minorities.

Thus Ukrainians in western Ukraine were thrilled when their popular Euromaidan uprising led to the overthrow of Russia-leaning president Viktor Yanukovych and the establishment of a western-friendly government, but the large Russian minority in Crimea was genuinely scared, especially when the Kiev government indicated that they were going to remove Russian as an official language, remove Russian street signs etc. All this played into Putin’s master narrative:

In his 2021 essay ‘On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians’, Putin referred to Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians as ‘one people’ making up a triune Russian nation. He maintained that large parts of Ukraine are historical Russian lands and claimed there is ‘no historical basis’ for the ‘idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians’.

Reading Galeotti’s account of the annexation of Crimea, what’s impressive was the lack of violence and Russian brutality. Russia infiltrated special units (Galeotti, of course, gives minute detail of just what units, led by which commanders, were deployed where) to all the key command points before the Ukraine high command had cottoned on to what was happening.

Crimea was an extraordinary military success. (p.178)

Local support

A key point is that a lot of Crimeans are ethnic Russians and genuinely welcomed the annexation. Putin organised a quick referendum and claimed 97% of the population approved the annexation (p.177). Do they think the rest of the world is stupid? Or are they so trapped inside their chauvinist box that they think Soviet-era electoral fictions are viable? Maybe both. They might as well have claimed 200% of the electorate wanted reunification with Russia. This kind of thing brings down derision and contempt on the Putin administration but they don’t see it.

And all along, as Galeotti points out, it isn’t necessary. If they had held a free and fair referendum, chances are the pro-Russian vote would still have won. But the Russian political elite has no concept of what democracy is and how to use it. The heirs to 250 years of Mongol khans and 400 years of tsars and 75 years of communist totalitarianism, the Russian elite literally knows no other way of ruling except via top-down diktats.

Comparison of Russian nationalism and Islamism

A key point, and a running thread through the book, is that in all these conflicts – Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine – the situation was made messy and confusing by the involvement of local militias. Chechnya is fascinating because some of the forces fighting the Russians were straight nationalists but, given the era and the proximity to Afghanistan, many of them were Islamic groups fighting for something else entirely, for the creation of an Islamic Caliphate in the Caucasus.

In a sense this kind of Islamic ideology and Russia’s chauvinism have a lot in common in that 1) they both inspire a kind of messianic intensity of belief and, 2) on a more practical level, that they don’t believe in borders. Greater Russia chauvinism flies free of accepted borders, borders are the enemy, keeping good Russians trapped in foreign countries created by an alien settlement somehow engineered by the perfidious West. Russia will only be great when these invalid nation states are swept away and the borders redrawn to include all true Russians in the genuine Greater Russia.

Identically the same with Islamist ideology, which believes all the borders and nation states of the Middle East were created by Western imperialists and the region will only be strong and pure when all believers are united in the restored caliphate, free of the trappings of the imperial West.

It’s a match made in heaven.

The role of militias in near Russian countries

To come back to the role of local militias, something which makes all the Russia wars feel very distinctive is that they were and are fought in places which are already riven by ethnic and tribal and cultural division. To read about Chechnya and Georgia is to be impressed by how fissile those ‘nations’ already were. The authorities in Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi, had only nominal control over the entire region of South Ossetia which was packed with pro-Russian separatists or, over to the west, on the Black sea coast, with the region of Abkhazia, ditto.

These are ‘countries’ which 1) already featured a large pro-Russian community and 2) were and are characterised by a high level of clan and tribal attachment which converts into tribal politicians, tribe-based mafias and, by an easy extension, clan-based militias.

The complicated role played by local militias in very clan-based, feuding societies is a central feature of all these conflicts.

Donbas and beyond

And continued in the Ukraine. For even as he was infiltrating his troops into Crimea for what proved to be a surprisingly bloodless annexation (February 2014), Putin was also encouraging local pro-Russian militias in eastern Ukraine.

The fascinating aspect of Galeotti’s account is how the conflict in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine began spontaneously, with coalitions of independence politicians, activists, and rag-tag militias taking on the Ukrainian authorities. It certainly wasn’t a carefully planned operation like the annexation of Crimea, the opposite, and for some time the Kremlin didn’t know how to react. To begin with they began to siphon military hardware to the more successful pro-Russian militias, followed, after some months, by military advisers.

Galeotti says that in these early phases the aim was to warn the new pro-western regime in Kiev of the consequences of allying with the West, no more. However, as the Ukraine army got its act together and, working with pro-government militias, began to drive the pro-Russia forces East, the Kremlin had to decide whether to acquiesce in their defeat or escalate. They chose to escalate and sent in regular Russian troops, breaching the sovereignty of a European nation (p.187).

Galeotti describes the two ceasefire treaties, Minsk 1 and Minsk 2, their predictable failure, and the settling down of the problem into a permanent low-level conflict. It reminded me of some of the civil wars I’ve read about in Africa, contested borders, governments relying on local militias, all sides using exemplary violence i.e. carrying out atrocities on unarmed civilians designed to warn other villages and towns to surrender without a fight.

As 2014 turned into 2015 and 2016 the Ukrainians reformed and reinforced their army with a huge recruitment drive, better training, new kit. They drove the rebels back but could never win because whenever they looked close to victory, the Russians deployed a regiment to block them.

So the pattern was one of on-off ceasefires, trench warfare, sporadic local fighting, mutual sniping and shelling, and equally mutual recrimination, until 2022 when Putin decided that it was time to break the stalemate. (p.191)

Syria, the unexpected intervention

We in the West think the Arab Spring was a spontaneous uprising of oppressed peoples across the Middle East to overthrow their corrupt old rulers. See my review of:

From the paranoid perspective of the Kremlin, though, it looked a lot like the uprisings were the work of a West systematically getting rid of traditional Soviet allies (Gaddafi, Saddam, Bashar al-Assad). At the UN, Russia acquiesced in the West’s bombing of Libyan forces but felt betrayed when this led not to a ceasefire but to the overthrow of Gaddafi. All of this, of course, was in light of America’s overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 which led not to a pleasant democracy but the collapse of the Iraqi state and chaos within and beyond its borders.

So Russia had at least three reasons for stepping in to prop up the Assad regime:

  1. the Assad family had been a friend and ally in the region: why not make him really indebted to you by saving his skin?
  2. as a message to America that Russia, too, could throw its weight around / be a regional force in the Middle East
  3. genuine concern that if Assad, too, fell, the whole Syria-Iraq strip of territory would fall to ISIS or other Islamist groups, which Russia has genuine cause to fear

Regarding ISIS, see my review of:

Regarding the international aspects of the Syrian civil war, see my review of:

The events of the Syrian civil war are complicated. But for Russia its intervention was surprisingly successful. It showed itself and the West that it could project its power significantly beyond its borders. It saved an old ally, thus bolstering its credibility. It served as a useful blooding ground for large parts of the Russian army, navy and air force, which were rotated through the theatre. It allowed the military to road test new technology, especially new drones, and to road test new doctrines and strategies for different situations and types of engagement.

It also marked the high point and maybe eclipse of the Wagner group of mercenaries, who were vital in holding the line during some attacks alongside the prone-to-run-away Syrian army, but also taught the Russian high command to keep them in their place.

Invasion of Ukraine

The 2022 invasion of Ukraine and the poor performance of Russia’s troops… (p.89)

Requires a post of its own…

List of post-Soviet conflicts Russia has been involved in

  • Transnistria war – November 1990 to July 1992
  • First Chechen war – December 1994 to August 1996
  • Tajikistan civil war – May 1992 to June 1997
  • Yugoslavia – 1992 to 1995 Russian forces were part of the UN peacekeeping force
  • Second Chechen War – August 1999 to April 2009
  • Russo-Georgian War – 7 to 12 August 2008
  • Russian forces joined international anti-pirate patrols off the coast of Somalia
  • Annexation of Crimea – February 2014
  • Start of Donbas war – February 2014
  • Syrian civil war – from 2015 Russian forces supported the Assad government
  • Second Nagorno-Karabakh War – 27 September to 10 November 2020 –Russia sent peacekeeping force in 2021
  • Invasion of Ukraine – 20 February 2014 to the present

Table of contents

For your information, here is a straight copy of the book’s table of contents, from which you can see its comprehensive scope and level of detail:

1. Before Putin

  1. Born in chaos
    • The Soviet Disunion
    • The August coup
    • Boris Yeltsin: the man without a plan
  2. A military in crisis
    • An army gone bad
    • Nukes for sale?
    • Bringing the boys back home
    • Empty dreams
    • ‘Pasha Mercedes’
  3. The first Chechen war
    • Resistance and resentment
    • High hopes, quick defeats
    • The plan
    • Taking Grozny…
    • … and losing Grozny again
  4. The wars of Russian assertion
    • Moldova’s post-Soviet hangover
    • Central Asia: the Tajikistan contingent
    • Balkan dash

2. Enter Putin

  1. Putin’s priorities
    • Who is Vladimir Putin?
    • Putin in charge
    • Putin’s ministers
  2. The second Chechen war
    • Round two
    • Retaking Grozny
    • Operation Wolf Hunt
    • The creation of ‘Kadyrovstan’
    • Lessons learned
  3. Ivanov, the Initiator
    • My name’s Ivanov, Sergei Ivanov
    • The spy and generals
    • Ivanov’s reforms
    • Size does matter
  4. Sedyukov, the Enforcer
    • Enter the taxman
    • Serdyukov’s purge
    • And enter Makarov
    • The Georgian excuse
  5. Georgia 2008: Tblisi’s move…
    • Harbingers
    • Provoking a war
    • The Georgian advance
    • The battle for Tskhinvali
    • The Russian advance
  6. Georgia 2008: …Moscow’s counter
    • The tide turns
    • The Abkhaz front
    • The audit
    • Did anything work well?
  7. ‘New Look’ army
    • Command and control: unified battle management
    • The ground forces: divisions to brigade
    • The air forces: rationalised
    • The navy: integrated at last
    • The airborne: survival

3. The New Cold War

  • Shoigu, the Rebuilder
    • Who is Sergei Shoigu?
    • ‘A servant to the tsar, a father to the soldiers’
    • General Gerasimov
    • Rearmament and recruitment
    • Ready for action
  • Crimea, 2014
    • Russia and Ukraine
    • ‘Returning Crimea to Russia’
    • Taking Crimea
    • Enter the ‘little green men’
    • ‘Crimea is ours’
    • An audit of the operation
  • Donbas, 2014-
    • Strelkov’s spark
    • A war of irregulars
    • The ‘Northern wind’
    • The fixing of the conflict
    • Stalemate
  • Lessons of the Donbas war
    • Command and control in a proxy war is hard
    • Information warfare is a powerful force multiplier
    • Implausible deniability has its place
    • Drones are the next big thing
  • Syria 2015 (1): the unexpected intervention
    • A long, bloody war
    • A friend in need
    • Heading to Hmeymin
    • Hmeymin’s hammer
    • Turning the tide
    • Victory of sorts
  • Syria 2015 (2); lessons of the Syrian campaign
    • Airpower is not (usually) enough
    • Mercenaries have their place, but need to know it
    • Brutality can work, but hearts and minds matter, too
    • Frenemies can find themselves in battle
    • A nice little war is good for business

4. Rearming Russia

  1. Rumble for ruble
    • When comparisons fail
    • ‘Let us starve, but let us export’
    • The metal-eaters
    • Buyer beware
    • Modernising the military
  2. Armiya Rossii
    • The battalion tactical group
    • The return of the division
    • Heavy metal
    • Specialised forces for specialised operations
    • Logistics
    • Capabilities
  3. The sky is Russia’s!
    • Always in transition
    • The aerospace forces
    • Defence of the motherland
    • Fist of the motherland
    • Heavy lift
    • Drones
  4. Contesting the sea
    • Never a naval power
    • Rusted, rebuilt
    • Organisation
  5. Power projection: blue and black berets
    • ‘Nobody but us’
    • By parachute, plane or track
    • The black berets
    • ‘Black Devils’
    • ‘Where we are, there is victory!’
    • Underwater sentinels
  6. The Spetsnaz
    • Special people, for special tasks
    • Tip of the spear
    • Putin’s Spetsnaz
    • The special operations command
  7. The nuclear backstop
    • Post-Soviet armageddon
    • Rail, road and tube
    • Under the waves
    • Strategic aviation
    • Modernisation and magic
    • Why nukes matter so much [they bolster Russia’s sense of itself as still a superpower]

5. The Future

  1. Political warfare
    • The rise of the spooks
    • Hybrid, ambiguous, non-linear, political
    • Outsourced warfighters [the Wagner group]
    • Information warfare
  2. New generation warfare
    • Small wars
    • Limited deployments
    • Big wars
    • Escalation, de-escalation and lesser apocalypses
  3. The challenges of the future
    • The Western flank
    • … And the turbulent South Caucasus, too
    • Central Asia: instability and jihad
    • China, the great frenemy
  4. Ukraine 2022: Putin’s last war?
    • Not the generals’ war
    • A police action, not a war
    • From Kyiv to the Donbas
    • How hubris destroyed a military
    • Deadlock
  5. Conclusions: the Eurasian Sparta?
    • A nation under arms?
    • The military myth
    • The security state?
    • A weak hand played well
    • After Putin?
  6. Ukraine 2023: a dispatch on a war in progress
    • The paradox of reform
    • War Putinism
    • The mutiny
    • The war in Russia
    • The imagination race
    • Prospects

General conclusions

The whole spectacle confirms my strong feeling that human beings simply cannot govern themselves. The naive expect humanity to take some kind of concerted action against climate change. Really? With people like this in charge?

Are modern wars doomed to failure?

Are modern wars winnable? When was the last time either Russia or America actually won a war?

For the Russians – Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, Yugoslavia, Syria, Ukraine.

For the Americans – Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Russian lies

I watched the BBC TV series ‘Putin and the West’ in which French president Francoise Hollande and British Prime Minister David Cameron baldly stated that Putin is a liar. Hollande said not only is Putin a liar but his entire approach to diplomacy is to lie, his strategy is based on lying about everything.

The Russians even lie when the lie is so blatant and absurd it damages their own cause. Galeotti’s book contains some nice examples. In 1993 during the Georgian war the Russians broke a ceasefire agreement by bombing Sukhumi while it was still held by Georgian forces.

Russian defence minister Grachyov responded with the implausible and widely derided claim that these were Georgian aircraft painted with Russian colours, bombing their own positions as a provocation. (p.122)

In moments like that you can see how lying is such second nature to the Russian establishment that it can’t see how stupid and ridiculous it makes them look to the outside world. This was captured in a recent press event in Delhi where Russian foreign minister Lavrov claimed the Ukraine war started when Ukraine attacked Russia and went on to claim that Russia was trying to halt this unfortunate war.

This is Göbbels-level lying which is so absurd that it makes you worry about the sanity of the Russian leadership. Putin ordered the military invasion of Ukraine but, having read Galeotti’s book it’s easy to think that Putin and his circle genuinely believe that they invaded the territory of a neighbouring country because they genuinely see Ukraine’s defection to the West as a kind of attack on Russia, on Russia’s idea of itself, on the Russian nationalist belief that Ukraine and Belarus aren’t independent nations at all. They felt culturally, psychologically and strategically ‘attacked’ and so sincerely believe that the military invasion was a justified response to the Ukraine government’s insult and threat to Russian hegemony.

At moments like this you can see how the Russian elite inhabits a different mindset, in effect a different reality, from the rest of the world, utterly blinded by their Greater Russia nationalism and prepared to do anything to protect it.

But there is, of course, an alternative interpretation, which is that a lot of these lies uttered in public fora are for domestic consumption. Edited by Russia’s totally cowed and quiescent media, they can then be broadcast on the nightly news, with the laughter track removed and roars of applause edited in.

Yes, it’s important to remember that the Russian government lies to everyone including its own people, and that if anyone finds out the truth and starts broadcasting it they are quickly locked up or pushed out a window or die of mystery poison. But then being lied to by your government is another venerable old Russian tradition. This isn’t my prejudice, it is a factual point Galeotti makes over and over again:

Russians have decades’ or even centuries’ experience of being lied to by their governments, especially regarding wars… (p.375)

The Russian bearhug

There’s a hoary old proverb about Mexico, ‘Poor Mexico! So far from God, so close to the United States!’ How much more true this is of every nation which borders Russia today. China, Mongolia and Kazakhstan probably needn’t be too worried, too big, nothing to steal.

But poor Georgia, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia and Finland – the Putin Doctrine, the concepts of Greater Russia, near abroad, Russian irredentism, Russian neo-imperialism, Russian nationalism – all these variations on the same theme mean the leaders and peoples of those countries must be permanently anxious about whether Russia will attack and invade them next.

It’s unlikely, seeing as most of the Russian army’s resources are deployed to – and being consumed in – Ukraine. But in planning for the future, the next five, ten years, should they be factoring in invasion by Russia?

Thank God there’s the whole length of Europe between my country and the resentful, angry, permanently aggrieved Russian bear.

War with China?

Although I’ve spent my entire life worrying about a nuclear war, subjected to movies and novels and documentaries about the horror of a nuclear war with the USSR or Russia, and although Putin and his mouthpieces go on and on about the threat from ‘the West’, Galeotti disarmingly says Russia is never going to face the threat of an invasion by NATO. Do you think the people of Belgium or Italy or Austria would ever want to attack Russia? Why? Let its people stew in the repressive authoritarian culture which they seem to love and recreate in every generation.

Galeotti argues that the real threat is China. The majority and the best Russian armed and air forces are concentrated in the west of the country, all on high alert for the mythical invasion by Holland and Denmark and Lithuania which is never going to come. But what about the vast area of Siberia?

Galeotti explains that during the imperial nineteenth century Russia seized large bits of territory from China. In principle these borders were re-agreed by a treaty of 2008, but what if China wants them back? Russia’s border with China is 4,000 kilometres long and very thinly protected (p.339).

The relationship between China and Russia is set to become more asymmetrical with China increasingly becoming the economic master and Russia the vassal. Deprived of trade with the West because of Ukraine sanctions, Russia is increasingly forced to sell its oil and gas to China which is aware of its partner’s weakness. What if China’s demands for unequal trade deals slowly, steadily increase? And apparently there has been growing concern in the FSB, some of it expressed publicly, at the growth of Chinese cyber activity against Russia, spying and hacking. And what about China’s growing influence in the five vast ‘stan’ countries to Russia’s south, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, where Chinese promises of investment and cash prove more attractive than Moscow’s penniless bullying? Likelihood is all these tensions will slowly ratchet up, the direction of travel is one way, with Russia contracting before an ever-growing China…

All of Russia east of the Urals is serviced by just two enormous train lines both of which could be easily ruptured and then none of its western forces could be redeployed. Any incursion could not be contained by forces which can’t reach the battlefield and so it is here, out East, that any escalation to battlefield nuclear weapons and beyond is most likely, or least unlikely. Discuss.

Over-optimistic?

The paperback edition of the book has a final chapter written in August 2023 covering the war in Ukraine up to that date and moving onto political conclusions. Galeotti’s account of the war (as of all the other wars he covers) is brisk and very readable, it’s his broader conclusions I question.

Writing in 2022, Galeotti pulls together a raft of evidence to suggest the war has been a disaster for Putin and Russia, it’s the end of the Russian army, public opinion is turning against him, draft dodging is up, there have been firebombing of draft offices, social media is awash with soldiers bitterly complaining about being used as cannon fodder, strongly implying that the president’s days are numbered and throwing in the old canard about him being ill, cancer, some immune disease etc.

It starts out sensible and maybe each of the strands are true, but life isn’t that sweet. There is no justice. Russia is an autocratic nation, ruled for its entire history by lying dictators. It’s not being pessimistic, it’s being coldly realistic, to assume that this will never change.


Credit

‘Putin’s Wars: from Chechnya to Ukraine’ by Mark Galeotti was published by Osprey Publishing in 2022.

Related links

Related reviews

Boris Mikhailov: Ukrainian Diary @ the Photographers’ Gallery

From the press photos I wasn’t anticipating too much but ‘Boris Mikhailov: Ukrainian Diary’ turns out to be a really interesting and rewarding exhibition, fully deserving the two floors of gallery space given over to it.

First room of Boris Mikhailov: Ukrainian Diary @ the Photographers’ Gallery

One of the problems is the promotion web pages and images just show one photo at a time and some of them look a bit meh, don’t feel that good, as a group they don’t add up to a unified look’ etc. It’s only when you get to the exhibition that you realise a number of key facts which transform your understanding.

1. Amateur Boris Mikhailov got into photography by accident, had no formal training, and so was free to invent and make things up. A lot of these innovations are really interesting.

2. Articulate Mikhailov is a very good explainer of his own work, so the wall labels which explain it are not only informative but his explanations of his innovations are unusually inspiring and interesting.

3. Bad photography One of these was the simple idea of bad photography. In the Soviet Union photography was a profession like any other, heavily controlled by the state with approved styles and qualities to promote uplifting images of perfect life in the workers’ state.

Mikhailov opened up a whole new world when he realised that bad, out of focus, poorly framed, damaged images were themselves a valid aesthetic, and a political statement. Badly printed, damaged or poor-quality productions were, he realised, the appropriate response to the shabby reality of Soviet life: ‘lousy photography for a lousy reality’. This explains why some of the images, when seen in isolation on a web page are only meh, whereas seen en masse, and accompanied by an eloquent explanation, they gain so much more power.

4. Sets It also explains why Mikhailov’s images are conceived and designed to be seen in sets and the sets don’t just represent a new subject, but the best of them embody an entirely new technique and way of thinking about photography. As he explains:

‘The idea that a single picture contains maximum information is a lie; I don’t believe in absolute truth. Exploring something from many different angles gives you a heightened sense of the truth. I need the sum of the images, the sum of the sequences in order to cast doubt on the correctness of one single, possible perception. The vibration between the images expands their possibilities.’

Biography

Born in Kharkiv, Ukraine in 1938, Boris Mikhailov is a self-taught photographer. Having trained as an engineer, he was first introduced to photography when he was given a camera to document the state-owned factory where he worked. He took advantage of this opportunity to take nude photographs of his first wife – an act forbidden under Soviet norms – which he developed and printed in the factory’s laboratory. He was fired when the photographs were found by KGB agents. From then he pursued photography full time, using it as a subversive tool and operating as part of the underground art scene.

His work first gained international exposure in the 1990s with the series ‘Case History’, a shockingly direct portrayal of the realities of post-Soviet life in the Ukraine. Having learned of him via his post-USSR collapse photos, Western fans were then able to go back and review his subversive works from the 1970s and ’80s. This exhibition presents the complete body of his work in chronological order.

‘Ukrainian Diary’ brings together work from over twenty of Mikhailov’s most important series, including:

Slideshow: Yesterday’s Sandwich (mid-’60s to 1970s)

One day he threw a couple of slides onto his bed and they stuck together. When he held the stuck slides up to the light he realised they made a dramatically surreal image and hence was born the series ‘Yesterday’s Sandwich’. As he experimented with the technique he realised the juxtaposition of random images could be thought of as reflecting the dualism and contradictions of Soviet society.

His commentary is fascinating. He explains that the 60s and 70s were a time, in all the countries of the Soviet bloc, of hidden messages and secret codes. No-one took official propaganda seriously but all organs of free expression were ruthlessly suppressed. Hence codes and secret signs and hidden allusions. In actual fact no particular ‘message’ emerges from these images except a surreal subversion of the normal, logical, sensible everyday world.

Nearly 100 of these wonderfully funny, crazy, surreal images are here displayed as a slideshow projected onto the wall of a darkened space in the gallery. For some reason they are displayed to a severely edited version of the classic Pink Floyd album, Dark Side of the Moon’ which Mikhailov considers an ‘exaggeration of beauty’ conveying a kind of ‘paradise lost’. It makes it an even more surreal experience, watching images from a distant and vanished society accompanied by such a familiar homely soundtrack.

Installation view of Boris Mikhailov: Ukrainian Diary @ the Photographers’ Gallery showing one of the composite images in the Yesterday’s Sandwich slideshow (photo by the author)

Black Archive (1968 to 1979)

‘Black Archive’ documents everyday life in Kharkiv, often revealing the disparity between public life and private life in domestic spaces. Under Soviet rule it was forbidden to photograph everyday life and so Mikhailov was forced to hide his camera in order to take furtive snapshots, often taken from behind and at odd angles. By contrast, the private sphere of people’s apartments was a space of freedom, most vividly expressed in the carefree nudity of many of his subjects.

But in the series Mikhailov also deploys his concept of ‘bad photography’— the deliberate production of sloppily printed, blurred, and low-contrast images full of visible flaws — as a metaphor and a tool for social critique.

Red (1968 to 1978)

The set ‘Red’ brings together more than 70 images taken in Kharkiv in the late 1960s and 1970s, all of which contain the colour red. From the wall labels we learn that red was a powerful symbol of the Russian Revolution (1917) and of the Soviet Union (1922 to 1991). Its presence in these varied photos indicates the extent to which communist ideology saturated everyday life. As usual Mikhailov explains all this in his vivid and fascinating way:

‘The word “red” in Russian has the same root as the word for beauty, it also means revolution and evokes blood and the red flag. Everyone associated red with communism. But few people realised that red had permeated all our lives. Demonstrations and parades are an important part of this series. It’s a place where one of the main images of Soviet propaganda—the face of happy Soviet life, secure in its future—was created. They became absolutely kitschy and vulgar… I sometimes felt that I was surrounded by a herd of cynics, victims, and fools, followed by people wearing red ribbons as if they were policemen. As if the regime was using the people’s desire to celebrate for its own ends. And it was important to me to photograph them in such a way that you could tell the “Soviet” from the “human”.’

From the series ‘Red’ by Boris Mikhailov (1968-75) © Boris Mikhailov, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn, Courtesy Boris and Vita Mikhailov

Luriki (Coloured Soviet Portraits) (1971 to 1985)

After losing his job as an engineer, Mikhailov managed to make a living as a commercial photographer, sometimes working on the black market, enlarging, retouching, and hand-colouring snapshots of weddings, newborns or family members lost in the war.

In what is considered the first use of found material in contemporary Soviet photography, Mikhailov then appropriated and reworked these manipulated photographs for his own practice. Often using vibrant or exaggerated colours, he made them more ‘beautiful’, staying within the law while simultaneously mocking the way Soviet propaganda glorified mundane events.

By means of these simple techniques, Luriki comically undermined the absurdity of the iconography of Soviet life. Grouped together, the pictures are like a Soviet family album, a collection of surreal, ridiculous situations.

Installation view of Boris Mikhailov: Ukrainian Diary @ the Photographers’ Gallery showing one of the Luriki images (photo by the author)

Dance (1978)

Apparently open-air dancing was a popular activity in Soviet Kharkiv. Mikhailov has a lovely set depicting people of all ages, sizes and shape, in 1970s Soviet clothes, sedately dancing, quite often women dancing with other women.

Installation view of Boris Mikhailov: Ukrainian Diary @ the Photographers’ Gallery showing some of the Dance photos (photo by the author)

Series of Four (early 1980s)

One wall is covered with these images grouped into sets of four. This came about by accident. Mikhailov set out to wander the streets of Kharkiv and take photos of nothing, of non-events, designed to capture the boredom and emptiness of Soviet life. But when he came to make contact prints he realised he didn’t have small-format paper so he put four images together on one sheet. At a stroke he realised he’d created something: the multiple points of view of the same scene creates complex effects. Suddenly a boring scene becomes part of a fragmented, multi-angled world. Presented in this way, they can also have a cinematic effect, telling a story in snapshots. And another effect is to create out of a mundane non-space a kind of cocoon, creating a compression of space, imbuing an anonymous nowhere with strange fugitive meanings.

Installation view of Boris Mikhailov: Ukrainian Diary @ the Photographers’ Gallery showing some of the Series of Four photos (photo by the author)

Crimean Snobbism (1982)

Mikhailov went to Gursuf, a seaside resort on the Crimean Peninsula and took portraits of himself, wife and friends frolicking by the seaside, adopting holiday poses etc. As with many of his sets, Mikhailov gave them a sepia tone, making them feel historic and detached from the present, and also suggesting their subversive intent. Because the entire set is intended as a parody of the kind of carefree, bourgeois lifestyle then associated with ‘the West’ and far beyond the reach of your average Ukrainian citizen, and which he satirises in phrases: ‘We’re so happy. We’re so beautiful. We’re so in love etc’.

Viscidity (1982)

In another interesting experiment, in the early 1980s Mikhailov started combining text and image together in a conceptual way: he glued his photographs carelessly onto sheets of paper, then scribbled thoughts—banal, poetic, or philosophical—in the margins. His fragmentary thoughts were not intended as captions, nor to illustrate or elucidate the photographs; they were often utterly unrelated to them and intended to be equally important, a composite reflection on the social stagnation of the Soviet Union.

‘Viscidity’ is the word he used to describe the period the country was living through at the time — ‘a peaceful, quiet, featureless, dull life, a time of deep political stagnation, a frozen day-to-dayness. There was no catharsis, no nostalgia, just grey, everyday life. Nothing was happening, nothing was at all interesting.’ Hence ‘lousy photographs with these lousy texts’, ‘unchanging ordinariness and timelessness.’

Unfinished dissertation (1984-5)

On the back of the tattered pages of a stranger’s university dissertation found in a rubbish bin, Mikhailov pasted poorly printed black-and-white photos of inconsequential moments and then jotted down his thoughts about art and life in the margins. The photos don’t synch with the text, neither shedding light on each other, except obliquely.

Salt Lake (1986)

Mikhailov’s father used to tell him about a salt lake in southern Ukraine where people went to bathe in the 1920s and ’30s, believing that the warm, salty water had healing properties. When Mikhailov went to visit himself he found the crowds of people on the beach near to a disused old factory, washing themselves in the factory pipes and smearing themselves with mud.

He found it ‘the quintessence of an average person’s life in the Soviet context. Despite the horrible, polluted, inhuman environment, the people were relaxed, calm, and happy.’ To the modern Western ye, this looks like a gallery of grotesques in a grim, squalid environment.

Later Mikhailov toned his images sepia, like photographs from another era and explains: ‘There was a kind of an interplay there, a fusion between the old and the new. Old, because it was something my father had seen, and at the same time a reality that still existed… An elaboration of an idea I’d explored before: we’re both there and not there, it’s both today and a long time ago.’

Installation view of Boris Mikhailov: Ukrainian Diary @ the Photographers’ Gallery showing some of the Salt Lake photos (photo by the author)

By The Ground (1991)

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Mikhailov took to the streets with his panoramic camera slung low around his waist. While the panoramic format is conventionally used for sweeping vistas and beautiful landscapes Mikhailov captured bleak street scenes which captured the shabby poverty of the streets.

Mikhailov also devised a protocol for installing the series: the prints are hung low on the wall, forcing the viewer to stoop down to see the images, as if to bring us closer to his subjects. As with previous sets, he also treated the images, toning the silver prints brown, imbuing them images with a sense of nostalgia. As always his own comments on his process are fascinating:

‘I “aged” the images by toning them in sepia… embedding the photos in layers of time to trigger parallel, photo-historical associations, to show that photography has become as elusive as existence itself.’

Installation view of Boris Mikhailov: Ukrainian Diary @ the Photographers’ Gallery showing some of the By The Ground wide-angle photos (photo by the author)

I am not I (1992)

A series of nude self portraits in which Mikhailov parodies traditional masculine stereotypes. The stereotypes he mocks are those promoted by the recently collapsed USSR but they are also recognisable as American stereotypes too. Thus he photographs himself in a range of comic or demeaning poses, wearing an absurd curly wig, holding a toy sword or, most strikingly, an artificial phallus. Like all the sets, these gain in meaning and humour when you see 20 variations next to each other.

From the series ‘I am not I’ by Boris Mikhailov (1992) © Boris Mikhailov, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn. Courtesy Boris and Vita Mikhailov

Green (1991 to 1993)

In the early 1990s Mikhailov produced a series of hand-coloured photographs known as the ‘Green’ series. The images are suffused with a lingering, toxic green tint to reflect the environmental decay and societal collapse following the fall of the Soviet Union. The series is represented here by a monumental triptych showing a decaying junkyard in an overgrown landscape. The colour green has a particular resonance for Mikhailov who says it is the colour of a swamp and indicates the moss which had grown on Soviet life, a metaphor for Soviet decay.

In earlier sets he had had photographed people living in poverty, drug addiction and social degradation using a disposable camera and cheap gelatin silver paper to evoke awkwardness and fragility. Here, he takes the concept further, using stains and drips of paint on the thin, crumpled paper as if to embody the worn, impoverished landscape and lives he saw around him.

Installation view of Boris Mikhailov: Ukrainian Diary @ the Photographers’ Gallery showing ‘Green’ (photo by the author)

At Dusk (1993)

Shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union Mikhailov wandered the streets of Kharkiv with a swing-lens camera that took in a 120-degree panoramic view, capturing the life of destitute people on the streets. He tinted all the images a heavy cobalt blue. Why? Several reasons: the colour (along with the title) indicate the transition from day to night. But blue also represents his boyhood memories of the Second World War, of fleeing with his mother on one of the last freight trains out of Kharkiv to escape the Nazi advance. Blue, he explains, is the colour of blockade, hunger and war. Tinting these images of street people the same colour a) indicates the severity of the crisis of poverty which hit his country and b) also produces images of intense and haunting beauty.

From the series ‘At Dusk’ by Boris Mikhailov (1993) © Boris Mikhailov, VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn. Courtesy Boris and Vita Mikhailov

Case History (1997 to 98)

A few years after the collapse of communism, Mikhailov realised that in his hometown of Kharkiv, not only had a new ruling elite of millionaires emerged, but a significant part of the population had also been plunged into poverty. The mid-1990s produced a new group of people, the bomzhes or homeless.

So Mikhailov set about photographing these pitiful people, right at the bottom of society. He produced a series of 400 raw portraits. As with other sets, he deliberately transgressed the codes of photojournalism by paying his subjects, and he and his wife Vita also often offered them hot meals in exchange for posing. Some of the poses are stage in the manner of the Pietà or the Descent from the Cross.

This exhibition shows one image of one abject couple blown up on the wall and a display case of 100 small test prints from his archive. They are pitiful to look at.

Installation view of Boris Mikhailov: Ukrainian Diary @ the Photographers’ Gallery showing the one blown-up image and 100 test prints from ‘Case Study’ (photo by the author)

Reflecting on these images the next day, I realised that their abjectness is emphasised by their nudity. What I mean is that, unless you have a buff toned body, most of us already look a bit embarrassing when naked and caught in everyday postures, in the shower, getting out of bed etc. Many (half?) of the shots in the Case History exacerbate the poverty and squalor of the subjects by showing old, ugly, maimed or ill people, naked or half-clothed. What I’m trying to convey is how this nudity powerfully amplifies the general air of degradation and humiliation.

The Theatre of War, Second Act, Time Out (2013 to 2014)

Euromaidan or the Maidan Uprising was a wave of demonstrations and civil unrest in Ukraine, which began on 21 November 2013 with large protests in Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in Kyiv. The protests were sparked by President Viktor Yanukovych’s sudden decision not to sign the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. Ukraine’s parliament had overwhelmingly approved of finalizing the Agreement with the EU but Russia had put pressure on Ukraine to reject it.

In late December 2013 Boris and Vita Mikhailov documented the protests, photographing protestors who had pitched their tents in the central square in Kyiv. Mikhailov comments that the situation was so tense that scenes felt like they had been staged. ‘The bonfires, the colours, the lights, the people sitting there exhausted — everything created a general feeling of tension. It was unclear how it would all end.’

The protests succeeded in forcing President Viktor Yanukovych to flee to Russia but soon afterwards, on 27 February 2014, Russian forces occupied the Crimea, starting the Russo-Ukrainian War which continues to this day.

Thoughts

Many of Mikhailov’s images are very strong in their own right, and display adeptness in an extraordinary range of styles, from the photojournalism of Salt Lake to the nostalgic surrealism of Yesterday’s Sandwich, the warlike intensity of the At Dusk series to the blistering poverty porn of the miserable Case Histories.

But as well as the appeal of individual images, or the impact of specific sets, the exhibition as a whole builds up into a powerful portrait of life in a Soviet state – to the shabby, unhealthy, stiflingly boring nature of life under communism – and then after 1990, to the catastrophic collapse in living standards for large swathes of the population in post-Soviet society.

It’s not only an impressive body of work by a consistently inventive and innovative artist, but a powerful portrait and indictment of life in Soviet and post-Soviet regimes.

Video

This is not the usual 30-second exhibition promotional video but an extended, 14-minute-long interview with Mikhailov which really brings over how articulate and interesting he is.


Related links

Related reviews

The Barber in London: Highlights from a Remarkable Collection @: the Courtauld Gallery

The Barber Institute in Birmingham is home to an internationally significant art collection. While the Institute is closed for major refurbishment (reopening in 2026) it has loaned 21 of its greatest paintings to the Courtauld Gallery in London. Fifteen of these have been given their own exhibition space on the third floor, while three others have been slipped into the permanent collection on the second floor, alongside similar works.

The 15 paintings in the main display have been carefully selected to convey the chronological range of the Institute’s collection and, at the same time, showcase successive styles and subjects in Western art. I divided them up into 9 classical or pre-modern works, and 6 modern. They are:

Classical

  1. Giovanni Bellini – Saint Jerome in the Wilderness (around 1445-60)
  2. Jan Gossaert – Hercules and Deianira (1517)
  3. Frans Hals – A Portrait of a Man Holding a Skull (1612)
  4. Nicolas Poussin – Tancred and Erminia (1634)
  5. Peter Paul Rubens – Landscape in Flanders (1635-40)
  6. Claude Lorrain – A Pastoral Landscape (1645)
  7. Thomas Gainsborough – The Harvest Wagon (1767)
  8. Élisabeth Vigée le Brun – Portrait of Countess Golovina (1800)
  9. J.M.W. Turner – The Sun Setting Through Vapour (1809)

Modern

  1. Gabriel Dante Rossetti – The Blue Bower (1865)
  2. James McNeill Whistler – Symphony in White, Number III (1865-7)
  3. Edgar Degas – Jockeys Before the Race (1879)
  4. Claude Monet – The Church at Varengeville (1882)
  5. Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec – A Woman Seated in a Garden (about 1890)
  6. Max Pechstein – Still Life in Grey (1913)

On the second floor

  1. Anthony van Dyck – Ecce Homo (1625)
  2. Sir Joshua Reynolds – double portrait Maria Marow Gideon and her brother William (1787)

Gallery

I’ve chosen four of the eighteen to comment on. First the curators’ official commentary, then my opinion, in italics.

Saint Jerome in the Wilderness by Giovanni Bellini (around 1445-60)

One of the first Venetian landscapes and one of the earliest known paintings by Giovanni Bellini as he set off on his 60-year career. The subject is Saint Jerome (about 342-420 AD), an early Christian theologian, one of the four ‘Doctors of the Church’, who spent some time in the wilderness, fasting and praying, and around whom numerous legends accumulated, one of them being that he pulled a thorn from the paw of a lion before delivering a long sermon on the blessings of Christianity. As Jerome was a scholar, paintings of him were popular with high-class, humanist patrons. The theme brought together the worlds of religion and classical culture.

Saint Jerome in the Wilderness by by Giovanni Bellini (1445-60)

This painting epitomises some of the many reasons I dislike Italian renaissance painting, including the crudeness of the draughtsmanship and the crudeness of the Christian proselytising. But the main reason I am averse to Italian Renaissance art is the barren aridness of the landscapes. I love the lush green landscapes of the northern Renaissance, dotted with all kinds of wild flowers. Here there are no flowers. Maybe that’s a wheat field in the background but it feels like a desert, and this is emphasised by the raw (and improbable) contours of the saint’s hideaway. It feels arid and barren.

The Harvest Wagon by Thomas Gainsborough (1767)

This lovely painting shows a group of rustic figures travelling in a harvest wagon at the end of the working day. The figures are unusually prominent for Gainsborough’s landscapes and are the result of careful study. Two of the women are based on the artist’s daughters, Mary and Margaret, while the landscape is inspired by the countryside around Bath where Gainsborough lived. Unlike his commissioned portraits, Gainsborough painted such landscapes for his own pleasure or as a speculation. This picture was given to his patron and friend Walter Wiltshire when the artist moved to London in 1774, as thanks for the presentation of the grey horse shown here.

The Harvest Wagon by Thomas Gainsborough (1767)

The image has two major elements: the first thing which I saw and enjoyed was Gainsborough’s characteristically ‘feathery’ leafed trees. A few summers ago I went swimming every day at the lido surrounded by trees on Tooting Common and spent the best part of an hour looking up at the trees and leaves, admiring the complex patterns they made as they shimmered and waved in the sun. Gainsborough’s trees always remind me of that strong visual memory.

Then there’s the people. As the curators say, it has an unusually large number of people and their position is unusually dominant and this is emphasised by the lines of the composition, namely the way the figures beside and on the wagon form a diagonal on the right, and to some extent on the left, creating a sort of pyramid effect. This is echoed by the line of the rearing horse at the front. If you drew a line from the horse’s knee through its neck it would closely mirror the line of the woman reaching up on the right of the wagon. All this reaching and rearing give the picture a dynamism unusual in Gainsborough’s usually placid compositions and make it all the more pleasing.

The curators tell us that the complicated composition of the people derives from an unexpected source, namely Peter Paul Rubens’s Descent from the Cross, which Gainsborough copied around this time. Fascinating to learn, my own personal spin would be that it shows Gainsborough translating 17th century European ideology (Catholic Christianity) into an Enlightened and very English painting of sensibility.

Portrait of Countess Golovina by Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun (1797-1800)

Vigée-Lebrun was Marie Antoinette’s favourite artist but when the French Revolution broke out she fled to Russia. Here, in the late 1790s, she befriended the countess Varvara Nikolaevna Golovina (1766–1821). She described Golovina as a ‘charming woman’ who was a talented musician and artist, and a lover of literature. The spontaneous and informal pose conveys Golovina’s lively intelligence and a sympathetic engagement between the two women. The compact octagonal format and the simple setting, with just one diagonal shaft of light behind the figure, reinforce the portrait’s intimacy.

Portrait of Countess Golovina by Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun (1797-1800)

This is the standout image of the show, which is why it appears on the poster and all the promotional material. It is stylised and sentimentalised but, nonetheless, everything about it is exceptional. The extremely simple backdrop with the one shaft of light across it reminded me of the stark, early classical paintings of contemporary French painter Jacques-Louis David. I wonder if they knew each other and if there was any influence.

The Blue Bower by Gabriel Dante Rossetti (1865)

The model for this amazingly colourful and sensual painting was Rossetti’s mistress, Fanny Cornforth. The cornflowers at the front refer to her name and the passion flowers suggest her fiery character. But the image is more a hymn to beauty than a portrait. A bower is a private setting for lovers and Rossetti has decorated it with exotic elements suited to a frankly amorous encounter. The tiles combine a Chinese cherry blossom motif with an Arabic shape and at the front is a Japanese stringed instrument, the koto.

The subject derives from 16th-century Venetian portraits of courtesans by artists such as Titian but instead of Titian’s relatively loose handling of paint, Rossetti treats every element of the picture with a Pre-Raphaelite attention to detail. Rossetti’s work is a celebration of sensuality and aesthetic indulgence that went against the grain of Victorian narrative painting and, indeed, morality, triggering much moralising criticism.

The Blue Bower by Gabriel Dante Rossetti (1865)

It certainly is a visual orgy of sensuality, of soft velvet, sumptuous furs and flowing auburn hair. But what really stands out is the way the subject is no frail and feeble Victorian heroine but a big, strong figure, filling the canvas; after a while you realise the central feature is her strong, wide, rippled neck. It is a bower of bliss but built for muscular encounters.

A bit more about Barber

The Barber Institute of Fine Arts was founded as a university gallery in 1932, the same year as The Courtauld Institute of Art and its collection. Both were intended to encourage the study and public appreciation of art.

The Barber was founded by Hattie, Lady Barber (1869–1933) in memory of her husband, Sir Henry Barber (1860–1927), a wealthy Birmingham property developer and lawyer. Lady Barber did not herself possess a significant collection of art. Instead, she created an endowment that allowed its directors to acquire works ‘of that standard of quality required by the National Gallery and the Wallace Collection’. For for nearly 100 years this founding vision has shaped a carefully selected collection of major works that represent key developments in the history of Western art.

The Institute’s holdings now include some 160 paintings, dating from the early Renaissance through to the late 20th century, more than 800 works on paper, as well as sculpture, decorative arts and one of the most important caches of Roman, Byzantine and Medieval coins in the world.

Lady Barber’s bequest also financed the construction of an elegant, Grade-1 listed building on the University of Birmingham’s Edgbaston campus. Designed by the architect Robert Atkinson (1883–1952), it opened to the public in 1939 with just 14 paintings on display. Intended as a nucleus for the arts and a social hub for the University, the Barber also has an Art Deco concert hall at its heart, as well as a lecture theatre and art history library, and houses the University’s Department of Art History, Curating and Visual Studies.

The Barber Institute of Fine Arts

Promotional video

Curator’s highlights

Highlights explained by curator Dr Chloe Nahum, Bridget Riley Art Foundation Curatorial Fellow at The Courtauld.


Related links

Related reviews

Aaron’s Rod by D. H. Lawrence (1922)

He paid hardly any outward attention to his surroundings, but sat involved in himself.
(The D.H. Lawrence posture, Aaron Sisson riding a train across northern Italy in chapter 14)

‘What’s the good of running after life, when we’ve got it in us, if nobody prevents us and obstructs us?’
(Motto of the gnarly little writer, Rawdon Lilly, p.337)

‘Aaron’s Rod’ isn’t a very good book. Well down the D.H. Lawrence reading list. Richard Aldington’s introduction to the Penguin edition does a good job of putting you off reading it. He describes it as a confused pot-boiler, a minor work. This is for two reasons:

1. The books consists of two halves which were written at different times: Lawrence began writing ‘Aaron’s Rod’ early in 1918 but abandoned it after writing the first eleven chapters, and you can see why: it’s not really clear what it’s about or where it’s going: the lead character keeps changing, from Aaron, to Jim Bricknell, to Rawdon Lilly for a while and only at the end back to Aaron again. Three years later, in 1921, Lawrence picked it up again and wrote the remaining ten chapters, in which he abruptly whisks his English protagonist off to Italy. But it’s not to much that: the problem is not just the change of scene but the drastic change of atmosphere and, above all, of style. It abruptly switches from being thin social satire of the first half to something more long-winded and earnest like the densest parts of ‘Women in Love’.

2. In his biography of Lawrence, Anthony Burgess quotes a letter in which Lawrence described rewriting ‘Women in Love’ seven times. This effort shows in the novel’s astonishing depth of characterisation and in the densely written depictions of human beings stripped back to elemental level. The highly wrought nature of the prose completely matches the theme and aim. By contrast, ‘Aaron’s Rod’ is not only inconsistent in tone and details (the kind of thing you’d correct by rewriting) but, for the first 11 chapters, is much, much thinner in texture and effect.

It’s the first of Lawrence’s really satirical works. As the war was starting (1914), the success of ‘Sons and Lovers’ (1912) and the scandal of ‘The Rainbow’ (1915) gave Lawrence an entrée into London’s literary and artistic society, a far cry from the colliers and farmers of Eastwood where he grew up. Soon he was hobnobbing with Lady Ottoline Morell and Bertrand Russell, meeting lots of other writers, artists and poets, and discovering just how horribly competitive, mean and backbiting they could be.

There were two results: 1) satire, taking the mickey out of the new, posh people he was meeting, their empty lives, their boredom and superficiality; 2) but satire is itself a superficial medium, ridiculing people’s appearance, behaviour and speech; it generally doesn’t attempt to reach the depths of human experience.

So it’s not just the fact that it’s a novel of two distinct parts, or the lack of consistency in tone or details, it’s the almost complete abandonment, in the first 11 chapters, of the flayed, primeval depth which The Rainbow and Women in Love achieved so awesomely. Instead, the first half is closer to the silly, social satire of Lawrence’s friend, Aldous Huxley but – crucially – without the comedy.

Lawrence invents a small group of bored bourgeois – a couple of rich couples, an artist, a painter, their wives and mistresses – and then invents half a dozen scenes for them to display their shallow worthlessness and silly affairs. But maybe in doing so he discovered that this really wasn’t his metier and, by chapter 11, had gotten understandably bored of the whole thing and dropped it.

The finished published novel isn’t cast in two parts but because that’s what Aldington and Burgess say about it, and also because there’s such an obvious break in the reading, I’ve divided this summary of it into two parts.

The title

In the Old Testament Aaron is the older brother of Moses. Unlike Moses, Aaron had a place at Pharaoh’s court and acted as Moses’ spokesman. His rod features in several stories. It was a divine symbol of Aaron’s authority as the first high priest of the Israelites. When Moses called up the first three of the plagues he brought down upon Egypt, it was via Aaron’s use of his magic rod. Later, when free and wandering in the wilderness, there was argument among the different tribes as to who deserved primacy. To emphasize the validity of the Levites’ claim to the offerings and tithes of the Israelites, Moses collected a rod from the leaders of each tribe in Israel and laid the twelve rods overnight in the tent of meeting. The next morning, Aaron’s rod was found to have budded and blossomed and produced ripe almonds. The rod was then placed before the Ark of the Covenant to symbolize Aaron’s right to priesthood (Wikipedia).

All these overtones are contained in the novel’s title. Within Lawrence’s story, ‘Aaron’s rod’ refers to the flute played by the central character, Aaron Sisson. The comparison is made, explicitly, by the writer Rawdon Lilly, in chapter 10. Here is the exchange in full. As you can see, like a lot of things in the novel, it starts with the promise of wit and deep meaning but peters out into inconsequentiality.

Aaron suddenly took his flute, and began trying little passages from the opera on his knee. He had not played since his illness. The noise came out a little tremulous, but low and sweet. Lilly came forward with a plate and a cloth in his hand.
‘Aaron’s rod is putting forth again,’ he said, smiling.
‘What?’ said Aaron, looking up.
‘I said Aaron’s rod is putting forth again.’
‘What rod?’
‘Your flute, for the moment.’
‘It’s got to put forth my bread and butter.’
‘Is that all the buds it’s going to have?’
‘What else!’
‘Nay—that’s for you to show. What flowers do you imagine came out of the rod of Moses’s brother?’
‘Scarlet runners, I should think if he’d got to live on them.’
‘Scarlet enough, I’ll bet.’

It ought to mean something, shouldn’t it, but like a lot of things in the novel, is heavy on promising rhetoric but, in the end, means nothing. Periodically there are discussions of music in the novel but not as many as you might expect. Lady Williams prefers Bach and Beethoven. In his pensione in Florence, Aaron:

studied some music he had bought in Milan: some Pergolesi and the Scarlatti he liked, and some Corelli. He preferred frail, sensitive, abstract music, with not much feeling in it, but a certain limpidity and purity. Night fell as he sat reading the scores. He would have liked to try certain pieces on his flute. But his flute was too sensitive, it winced from the new strange surroundings, and would not blossom. (p.251)

But the term really comes into its own in chapter 18, where it comes to symbolise the flowering of Aaron’s lust for the Marchesa (see summary of chapter 18, below). Here it is equated with his maleness and transparently symbolises the male member.

Part one. Beldover, Hampshire and London

Chapter 1. The Blue Ball

It is Christmas Eve after the First World War. We are in an ugly little mining town of Beldover, in the small home of Aaron Sisson. Aaron is a ‘men’s checkweighman’ at the local coalmines mines. He is 33 and a noted amateur player of the flute. He is blonde with a fair moustache and quite handsome.

He watches his two girls playing and squabbling over Christmas tree decorations. One of them finds a glass blue ball which has been handed down to him as a family heirloom. In the way of children the two sisters wonder how strong it is, what would happen if you drop it (it survives), what would happen if you throw it in the air and let it fall on the tiled floor – it breaks, angering their father.

Chapter 2. The Royal Oak

The children want candles for their Christmas tree so when Aaron sets off for his nightly visit to the pub, his wife, Lottie, asks him to buy some, and this is an opportunity for Lawrence to describe Christmas Eve in the main shopping street of a miners’ town like Beldover. Lawrence makes a point of stating: ‘The war had killed the little market of the town.’ Aaron buys eight candles in a shop.

Then he goes on to the pub, the Royal Oak. It’s a small space with benches and a couple of tables. Conversation with the men. This morphs into conversation with the local doctor who is, surprisingly, an Indian. Discussion of Indian independence. Strong hint that Aaron is close to, has slept with, the pub landlady. But the Indian conversation puts him in a bad mood, to the landlady’s irritation. At 10pm, chucking out time, she invites him into the back parlour to share a mince pie but he refuses. Reluctant to go home, on an impulse Aaron sets off down Shottle Lane.

Chapter 3. The Lighted Tree

Scene cuts to Shottle House, owned by Alfred Bricknell, ‘one of the partners in the Colliery firm. His English was incorrect, his accent, broad Derbyshire, and he was not a gentleman in the snobbish sense of the word. Yet he was well-to-do, and very stuck-up.’ His son, 6-foot Jim Bricknell, almost bald, ugly, ‘a cavalry officer and fought in two wars’. Josephine Ford, the girl Jim was engaged to. Alfred’s daughter, Julia Bricknell. Julia’s husband, Robert Cunningham, a lieutenant about to be demobilised, when he would become a sculptor once more. House guest Cyril Scott,

They’re rich and bored. They decide to place live candles in a big tree outside and are in the middle of doing this when Sisson strolls up, wearing a bowler hat and buttoned-up greatcoat. They are surprised but pleased to have someone interrupt the tedium. they invite him back into the house, give him drink and fete him, all of which Aaron greets with surprising sang-froid and indifference.

For some reason Jim warms to him and offers to put him up on the couch in his room, leads him off to his room, everyone goes to bed.

Chapter 4. ‘The Pillar of Salt’

Aaron has run away and abandoned his wife, Lottie. He’s sent her letters giving her access to money. The chapter opens with him having returned to the house at night, and now watching it hidden in the garden. He sees the comings and goings of Lottie and children through the window. Finally he sneaks inside to retrieve his flute, piccolo and music, and their case. Hiding, he overhears the visit of the Indian doctor, because one of his daughter’s is sick in bed and Lottie is scared. Aaron overhears the doctor’s rather over-familiar reassurance of his wife. When the doctor leaves and his wife goes upstairs to the sick girl’s room, Aaron silently slips out of the house and over the low garden wall.

Chapter 5. At The Opera

The same group of bored posh people we met in chapter 3 are lolling in a box at the opera in London, bored and sniping at each other. In addition there’s Rawdon Lilly, a writer, a dark ugly man, ‘bare-headed wispy, unobtrusive Lilly’, married to Tanny. Tanny is half Norwegian. And Struther, a painter.

The big topic of conversation is whether Julia Bricknell will take up the invitation of Cyril Scott to run off and leave her husband of eight years, Robert Cunningham, to have an affair. Robert is there, present, while the others discuss it. they all encourage her to have an adventure, and Robert doesn’t much mind, but she just can’t decide.

Incidentally, they all loathe the opera itself, hate the music and despise the fat oafish singers. It’s hard to make out whether Lawrence is satirising them for a bunch of philistines, or this is Lawrence’s own attitude to the opera. Either way, Lawrence completely lacks the gift for comedy. Although the characters laugh a lot at each others’ jokes or behaviour.

Argyle was somewhat intoxicated. He spoke with a slight slur, and laughed, really tickled at his own jokes.

But none of it is actually funny, none. Instead of comedy, the best Lawrence can usually deliver is acidulous contempt, jeering., something which is unconsciously echoed in the way so many of his characters are described as jeering. It’s a favourite word of his.

Chapter 6. Talk

Jim spots Aaron playing in the orchestra. After the opera he finds Aaron and invites him along with the rest of his party to his rooms at the Albany, decorated in fashionably Bohemian style. They are joined by a Mrs Browning, Clariss. A lot of pointless banter. Jim is convinced he is dying because no-one will love him. He asks Aaron whether he believes in love. Lilly has the larky idea of writing down the Grand Truths they are discovering in marker pen on the fire mantlepiece, choice insights such as LOVE IS LIFE and LOVE IS THE SOUL’S RESPIRATION. Jim is a champagne socialist.

Jim had been an officer in the regular army, and still spent hours with his tailor. But instead of being a soldier he was a sort of socialist, and a red-hot revolutionary of a very ineffectual sort.

This partly explains why he’s attracted to Aaron who he imagines is a proletarian. When he finds him after the opera, Jim walks Aaron to his rooms ‘talking rather vaguely about Labour and Robert Smillie, and Bolshevism. He was all for revolution and the triumph of labour.’ Then again, several of the little group of posh wastrels share a laughable attraction to ‘revolution’, notably sad Josephine:

‘My, wouldn’t I love it if they’d make a bloody revolution!’
‘Must it be bloody, Josephine?’ said Robert.
‘Why, yes. I don’t believe in revolutions that aren’t bloody,’ said Josephine. ‘Wouldn’t I love it! I’d go in front with a red flag.’

Callow. The party breaks up, they all go to Embankment tube station and then head off in their different directions. Aaron is rooming in Bloomsbury.

Chapter 7. The Dark Square Garden

A while later Josephine Ford hosts Aaron to dinner in a Soho restaurant. She quizzes him about his background, his family and why he left them. Aaron comes over quite appealingly as a man who just wants to be left alone. They walks across the Charing Cross Road past the British Museum to a Bloomsbury Square. There’s a high wind in the trees. Josephine talks about marriage, wanting to be loved etc. She was engaged to Jim Bricknell but has gone off him. She starts crying though Aaron doesn’t notice partly because of the storm in the trees. Then she asks him to kiss her, but he refuses. He doesn’t want to be forced into caring. He just wants to be left alone. She’s understandably insulted. They walk out of the garden and he sees her to the door of her lodging in offended silence.

Chapter 8. A Punch in the Wind

Lilly and Tanny live in a labourer’s cottage in Hampshire. They are poor. One day Jim Bricknell cables that he’s coming to visit. He brings sausages and fish paste. They gossip. Julia did go off with Taylor, leaving Robert alone. He’ll probably have a pop at Josephine. Jim’s started seeing his divorced French wife again.

Jim’s work in town was merely nominal. He spent his time wavering about and going to various meetings, philandering and weeping. (p.93)

Jim is trying. He stuffs his face with food, takes a loaf of bread to bed, and argues with Lilly. They argue about Christianity, Lilly like a good modern writer finding it detestable, Jim declaring it’s ‘the finest thing humanity’s ever produced’ and saying he’s looking for the Christ-like in man. When he asks if he can stay the Saturday, Lilly bluntly says no, tells him he has to leave tomorrow (Thursday).

They send a telegram to a girlfriend of Jim’s (Lois) to meet him at a station en route back to London so they can walk together, walk through the woods. Jim’s thing is he needs to be falling in love otherwise he feels life is empty and drinks to fill the void.

Back at the cottage they consume the tea Tanny has prepared and sit round the fire. Tanny is exasperated that Jim can’t just lead his own life without needing a woman to hold his hand and Lilly continues his mockery of Jim’s attitudes, till the big man suddenly leaps at him and punches him several times in the torso, hard. The odd thing is this doesn’t lead to an argument, all the characters accept it as somehow natural, in fact Tanny regards this as a wake-up call to dark little Lilly for constantly criticising his friends. This has the true Lawrence weirdness.

Next day they walk Jim to the train station, he invites them to come and stay at his country place, but it’s the last time Lilly and Tanny ever see Jim.

Chapter 9. Low-Water Mark

Tanny goes off to see ‘her people’ in Norway and Lilly rents a flat in Covent Garden, spends days watching the comings and goings. Just as the focus of the novel seemed to be settling on Lilly, Aaron reappears. One day Lilly sees a posh gent cross through the busy market and then slip over. Running downstairs he arrives the same time as a policeman, recognises Aaron, gets the copper to help Aaron up the stairs to his flat. It’s cosy with a piano and bookshelves.

What emerges is Aaron ‘gave in’ to Josephine, allowed himself to have feelings for her, and as soon as he stopped being aloof, something in him snapped. He is ill and Lilly puts him in his spare bed and calls a doctor, but Aaron gets worse. The doctor diagnoses the flu. Days pass as Aaron declines. Suddenly, with Lawrentian irrationality, little Lilly decides to strip him and rub him all over with oil, which he does laboriously, then recovers him with blankets, and Aaron starts to slowly recover.

Meanwhile, Lilly is given an extended rant which sounds just like Lawrence, betting that Aaron will be ungrateful when he recovers, then wandering off to the principle that man must stick up for himself, be himself, not rely on women (like Jim), give into women (like Aaron). This morphs into a rant about the races of the world, which is worth quoting to give you the full Lawrence flavour of a serious point stifled by madness and bigotry.

‘I can’t do with folk who teem by the billion, like the Chinese and Japs and orientals altogether. Only vermin teem by the billion. Higher types breed slower. I would have loved the Aztecs and the Red Indians. I KNOW they hold the element in life which I am looking for—they had living pride. Not like the flea-bitten Asiatics – even niggers are better than Asiatics, though they are wallowers – the American races – and the South Sea Islanders – the Marquesans, the Maori blood. That was the true blood. It wasn’t frightened. All the rest are craven – Europeans, Asiatics, Africans – everyone at his own individual quick craven and cringing: only conceited in the mass, the mob. How I hate them: the mass-bullies, the individual Judases. Well, if one will be a Jesus he must expect his Judas. That’s why Abraham Lincoln gets shot. A Jesus makes a Judas inevitable. A man should remain himself, not try to spread himself over humanity. He should pivot himself on his own pride.’ (p.120)

Slowly Aaron recovers while Lilly goes about the household chores, making him tea and darning his socks, which he enjoys. The chapter ends with a joint rant against women, which is so weird / mad / entertaining that I’ve made it a separate post.

Chapter 10. The War Again

We’re still in Lilly’s flat. It’s a week or so later. Aaron is much better. They chat. Lilly tells Aaron he’s signed on a merchant vessel sailing to Malta as a ship’s cook. Aaron, sounding like Lawrence, says what’s the point going anywhere if you remain the same, to which Lilly replies the with equally Lawrentian argument, ‘There are lots of me’s. I’m not only just one proposition. A new place brings out a new thing in a man.’

Then Lilly explains his theory of male and femaleness, that one must be absolutely oneself, in a relationship, but that makes the unity all the more profound: anyway, he despises most couples who are just a queasy oneness. When he talks about this unity being achieved after much fighting and sensual fulfilment, you strongly suspect he’s describing Lawrence and Frieda’s stormy relationship.

The two men have been living together for a fortnight. They have discovered a close sympathy.

The two men had an almost uncanny understanding of one another—like brothers. They came from the same district, from the same class. Each might have been born into the other’s circumstance. Like brothers, there was a profound hostility between them. But hostility is not antipathy. (p.129)

Lots more bickering then a friend of Lilly’s turns up, Herbertson, a captain in the Guards, had been right through the war, 45 and getting stout, very posh (p.137). Turns out he has a compulsion to talk about the war, and has found Lilly a good listener.

It was the same thing here in this officer as it was with the privates, and the same with this Englishman as with a Frenchman or a German or an Italian. Lilly had sat in a cowshed listening to a youth in the north country: he had sat on the corn-straw that the oxen had been treading out, in Calabria, under the moon: he had sat in a farm-kitchen with a German prisoner: and every time it was the same thing, the same hot, blind, anguished voice of a man who has seen too much, experienced too much, and doesn’t know where to turn. None of the glamour of returned heroes, none of the romance of war: only a hot, blind, mesmerised voice, going on and on, mesmerised by a vision that the soul cannot bear.

In this officer, of course, there was a lightness and an appearance of bright diffidence and humour. But underneath it all was the same as in the common men of all the combatant nations: the hot, seared burn of unbearable experience, which did not heal nor cool, and whose irritation was not to be relieved. The experience gradually cooled on top: but only with a surface crust. The soul did not heal, did not recover.

Five pages of very intense war stories are given to Herbertson, some very gruesome indeed (headless bodies) all told in the posh pukka way of an officer on the edge of hysteria. Damning indictment of war. In amid the gore, Herbertson expresses his belief that all the men who were killed had a presentiment of their deaths.

Then he lifted his face, and went on in the same animated chatty fashion: ‘You see, he had a presentiment. I’m sure he had a presentiment. None of the men got killed unless they had a presentiment – like that, you know….’
Herbertson nodded keenly at Lilly, with his sharp, twinkling, yet obsessed eyes. Lilly wondered why he made the presentiment responsible for the death – which he obviously did – and not vice versa.
Herbertson implied every time, that you’d never get killed if you could keep yourself from having a presentiment. Perhaps there was something in it. Perhaps the soul issues its own ticket of death, when it can stand no more. Surely life controls life: and not accident.

It’s two in the morning before he leaves, leaving Lilly and Aaron depressed and arguing about the war. Lilly takes the Lawrence line that the war was, in some sense, false because it didn’t happen to him, it didn’t occur at the really deep level.

‘Damn all leagues. Damn all masses and groups, anyhow. All I want is to get MYSELF out of their horrible heap: to get out of the swarm. The swarm to me is nightmare and nullity—horrible helpless writhing in a dream. I want to get myself awake, out of it all—all that mass-consciousness, all that mass-activity—it’s the most horrible nightmare to me. No man is awake and himself. No man who was awake and in possession of himself would use poison gases: no man. His own awake self would scorn such a thing. It’s only when the ghastly mob-sleep, the dream helplessness of the mass-psyche overcomes him, that he becomes completely base and obscene.’

When Aaron demurs, Lilly tells him he (Aaron) has to leave tomorrow (in the same peremptory way he demanded that Jim Bricknell leave his Hampshire cottage ahead of time). He’s serious about it, and turfs Aaron out the next morning. When Aaron pops round a few days later to say a final goodbye before Lilly sails, Lilly makes sure to be out. It is a serious breach in their friendship.

Chapter 11. More Pillar of Salt

The opera season ended, Aaron was invited by Cyril Scott to join a group of musical people in a village by the sea. He accepted, and spent a pleasant month. It pleased the young men musically-inclined and bohemian by profession to patronise the flautist, whom they declared marvellous. Bohemians with well-to-do parents, they could already afford to squander a little spasmodic and self-gratifying patronage. And Aaron did not mind being patronised. He had nothing else to do.

The chapter is titled ‘More’ because Aaron returns to the Midlands, to his town, and to his house. First crouching in the garden at the night, then walking up the garden path and into the house to surprise and dismay his wife. She, obviously, is upset and hurls reproaches at him which he is too vague to formulate replies to. The style reverts to the ‘Women in Love’ style of lots of repetition of key phrases and the man and the woman conceived as primal archetypes, along with that fundamental Lawrentian characteristic, of conflicting and contradictory emotions. His wife berates him, but then gives way to floods of tears, comes, kneels by his side her head on his thigh, wailing.

Him it half overcame, and at the same time, horrified. He had a certain horror of her. The strange liquid sound of her appeal seemed to him like the swaying of a serpent which mesmerises the fated, fluttering, helpless bird. She clasped her arms round him, she drew him to her, she half roused his passion. At the same time she coldly horrified and repelled him. He had not the faintest feeling, at the moment, of his own wrong. But she wanted to win his own self-betrayal out of him. He could see himself as the fascinated victim, falling to this cajoling, awful woman, the wife of his bosom. But as well, he had a soul outside himself, which looked on the whole scene with cold revulsion. (p.154)

So this fraught scene receives the full Lawrence treatment but… it doesn’t really work. The satirical or light characters, the effusions of vapid dialogue which have filled the intervening chapters, have undermined the ‘Women in Love’ vibe, invalidated it. He can’t write 150 pages of thin, surface stuff then suddenly turn on the primeval style and expect the reader to fall in line. ‘Aaron’s Rod’ demonstrates how the Lawrentian style, when applied to an unworthy object (or undeveloped characters) fails.

Anyway, Aaron tears himself away from his weeping wife and simply walks out, down the garden, over the wall, across fields till he finds a hay rick and makes up a bed and lies on it under the September stars. And formulates the fundamental Lawrence theme:

Love was a battle in which each party strove for the mastery of the other’s soul. So far, man had yielded the mastery to woman. Now he was fighting for it back again. And too late, for the woman would never yield. But whether woman yielded or not, he would keep the mastery of his own soul and conscience and actions. He would never yield himself up to her judgment again. He would hold himself forever beyond her jurisdiction. Henceforth, life single, not life double.

Part two. Italy

Chapter 12. Novara

So Aaron goes back to London and gets gigs playing the flute. He plays for the famous socialist Artemis Hooper, in her boudoir, attended by various other high society guests. He becomes tired of being a plaything of the idle rich, one minute talking to the latest socialite at a posh reception, the next walking home to his shabby lodgings in the rain. So he does what many the hero of an Edwardian novel does, and leaves England for Italy.

Lilly had written saying he was staying with a Sir William Franks in a place in Italy called Novara. So Aaron travels there. When he finally manages to get a cab to take him to the grand estate of Sir William, he is met at the gates, is met at the door, is shown up the stairs to a palatial bedroom, Lawrence makes space for a little dig at the degrading impact of cinema.

He had fallen into country house parties before, but never into quite such a plushy sense of riches. He felt he ought to have his breath taken away. But alas, the cinema has taken our breath away so often, investing us in all the splendours of the splendidest American millionaire, or all the heroics and marvels of the Somme or the North Pole, that life has now no magnate richer than we, no hero nobler than we have been, on the film. Connu! Connu! Everything life has to offer is known to us, couldn’t be known better, from the film. (p.163)

It is a grand house and when Aaron arrives Sir William, the frail old man, is in the middle of holding a grand dinner, servants serving up posh food to half a dozen eminent guests, including a couple of officers in khaki, namely:

  • little Sir William
  • Lady Sibyl Franks
  • a young, slim woman with big blue eyes and dark hair like a photograph
  • a smaller rather colourless young woman with a large nose
  • a stout, rubicund, bald colonel, dressed in khaki
  • a tall, thin, Oxford-looking major, tall and slim with a black patch over his eye, dressed in khaki
  • a good-looking, well-nourished young man in a dinner-jacket

After dinner there is some fol-de-rol with pinning three medals he’s been awarded on to the old man’s chest. Then Sir William questions Aaron about his life, leaving his wife, having to earn a living and so on. He dwells on his and Lilly’s faith in a Providence to look after them, rather than have a job or career. Aaron takes it all with the same puzzling indifference he takes everything else in his life, a ‘fine, mischievous smile’ on his face.

Chapter 13. Wie Es Ihnen Gefällt

Which is German for ‘As you like it’. Next morning Aaron is woken in his plush guest bed by a servant bringing coffee, rolls and honey. He dresses, wanders through the mansion observing the servants doing their chores, then out into the garden and up the grape terraces behind the house to a bench where he can admire the breath-taking view over the valley, the river, the town of Novara to the majestic Alps beyond.

Aaron walks down to the town and Lawrence vividly describes the sight and sounds and feel of an Italian town. He goes to the train station and finds out about trains to Milan, then back up to the Franks’ house. There’s a formal tea but we don’t hear much about it. Instead the evening finds Aaron in the hall, before the vast fire, tired and depressed, thinking about his wife, Lottie. And Lawrence gives him a vast screed about the eternal female, about fighting against woman’s smothering, how during their ‘terrible and magnificent connubial deaths in his arms’ (sex) he had always held back, never gave himself.

In other words, the novel mutates from the dialogue-heavy satire of the first 11 chapters into the long-winded, primeval, elemental archetype writing of ‘The Rainbow’ and ‘Women in Love’. All this is combined with an unusually direct address to the reader, which feels rather clumsy. After pages and pages exploring Aaron’s coming-to-awareness of his own personality and limitations, the narrator says the man himself wouldn’t have put it into words like this, he would have expressed it as music.

The inaudible music of his conscious soul conveyed his meaning in him quite as clearly as I convey it in words: probably much more clearly. But in his own mode only: and it was in his own mode only he realised what I must put into words. These words are my own affair. His mind was music.

Don’t grumble at me then, gentle reader, and swear at me that this damned fellow wasn’t half clever enough to think all these smart things, and realise all these fine-drawn-out subtleties. You are quite right, he wasn’t, yet it all resolved itself in him as I say, and it is for you to prove that it didn’t. (p.199)

The thrust of this long delirious passage seems to be Lawrence’s latest belief, that, no matter how deeply in love you are, how deeply you commune with another person, you can give yourself, but you cannot and should not give yourself away. Something must remain indissolubly private. The best communion is of two people who, despite all the modern clichés about love, remain at the deepest level, rigorously separate.

The completion of the process of love is the arrival at a state of simple, pure self-possession, for man and woman… It is life-rootedness. It is being by oneself, life-living…

Then the tone cuts drastically back to social satire mode. Sunday evening dinner at Lord Franks’s house. Here Aaron gets into conversation with Lady Franks, who explains why she prefers old classical music to Strauss and Stravinsky: it has more depth and more religion. She’s also convinced she has a guardian spirit watching over her.

Dinner is described in excruciating detail, as the four men get drunk, then have a pointless conversation, then stagger drunkenly up the stairs. In the drawing room they have to submit to an agonisingly boring rendition of Schumann on the piano by Lady Frank and then Aaron is called on to perform on his flute, like a trained seal. Throughout he has the sense of licking the rich people’s boots.

Lawrence is slack about details. In part 1 the war had very obviously only just ended, was fresh. Here in part 2, is the sentence:

‘Now, Colonel,’ said the host, ‘send round the bottle.’ With a flourish of the elbow and shoulder, the Colonel sent on the port, actually port, in those bleak, post-war days!

Those bleak, post-war days – signalling that the author is now writing, or the book being published, at some remove from those days. A tiny indication of the later date at which Lawrence wrote the second half of the novel.

Chapter 14. XX Settembre

Next morning Aaron wakes into a scared feeling of heading into nothingness. All he knows is he has snapped his ties with the past, but he has no plan for the future. A servant brings in coffee and toast and he feels better. At 8am sharp Lady Franks’ car is ready to take him in upholstered luxury to the train station. He hates being in the car and is glad to climb out and into the busy, open air life of the common people.

He checks into the Hotel Britannia then goes wandering round the town giving a characteristically vivid but acidulous description of it, notably the famous cathedral with all its pointy bits. Lawrence doesn’t bother with history or scholarship, architectural knowledge or anything like that. Absolutely everything he encounters is described for the immediate impact it makes on his senses, senses stripped back. When he’s on form, these descriptions are amazingly vivid; when he’s not at the top of his game, they can sound repetitive and forced.

Back at his hotel he witnesses a big political march. There’s been a rally and now a march of workers is moving through the town and, for some reason, tearing the Italian flag – ‘the red, white and green tricolour, with the white cross of Savoy in the centre’ – down off buildings. the house bang opposite his hotel has the flag flying on the third floor. After arguing with the woman who keeps the shop on the ground floor but apparently has no access to higher floors, a young lad bravely climbs the outside of the building up to the third floor, tears the flag off and throws it to the crowd below, who cheer.

At that point a crowd of carabinieri (Italian police) charge into the square and start beating up and arresting anyone not quick enough to flee. The boy on the third floor is trapped and, with guns trained on him, meekly descends and is arrested.

Aaron becomes aware of two Englishmen looking out a nearby window of his hotel at the scene. He retreats into his room and plays the flute to calm down. At dinner he hears their posh voices discussing their holiday itinerary. Franz ‘Francis’ Dekker and Angus Guest (p.230). Remember how the snobbish English tourists in E.M. Forster’s Room With A View detested all the other English tourists? Twenty years later nothing has changed.

Said Francis, in a vehement whisper, ‘After all, we are the only three English people in the place.’
‘For the moment, apparently we are,’ said Angus. ‘But the English are all over the place wherever you go, like bits of orange peel in the street.’ (p.227)

Francis cross-questions Aaron about his origins. The two men are very camp in their speech, presumably gay. They simply adored his playing on the flute. Aaron explains he’s heading to Venice to meet up with Lilly but they’ve heard rumours that Lilly is in Munich being psychoanalysed. they ask him to come with them to Florence.

Chapter 15. A Railway Journey

I haven’t mentioned that the narrator voice is irritatingly intrusive and buttonholing – ‘ Behold our hero…’, ‘There sat our friend…’, ‘Our two young heroes…’, ‘our gypsy party…’, ‘Don’t grumble at me then, gentle reader…’

So Aaron goes with this gay couple to Florence. He rides in third class while they swank in first class, which triggers a long disquisition about class consciousness (see below). English versus Italian train passengers:

Sitting there in the third-class carriage, he became happy again. The presence of his fellow-passengers was not so hampering as in England. In England, everybody seems held tight and gripped, nothing is left free. Every passenger seems like a parcel holding his string as fast as he can about him, lest one corner of the wrapper should come undone and reveal what is inside. And every other passenger is forced, by the public will, to hold himself as tight-bound also. Which in the end becomes a sort of self-conscious madness. But here, in the third class carriage, there was no tight string round every man. They were not all trussed with self-conscious string as tight as capons. They had a sufficient amount of callousness and indifference and natural equanimity. True, one of them spat continually on the floor, in large spits. And another sat with his boots all unlaced and his collar off, and various important buttons undone. They did not seem to care if bits of themselves did show, through the gaps in the wrapping. Aaron winced – but he preferred it to English tightness. He was pleased, he was happy with the Italians. He thought how generous and natural they were

When he goes to have lunch with them, some peasant takes his seat, despite Francis’s outraged remonstrances, so he joins them in their first class compartment. When the train is delayed at Prato, they get water from the restaurant car, nip out for chestnuts and figs, and have themselves a tidy little picnic.

They arrive late in Florence and the two gays put up at a posh hotel, making it clear they’d prefer Aaron to push off. Next morning he’s up and exploring the great Florence, treading where hundreds of thousands of British and American tourists had oohed and aahed themselves. He finds a cheap pension, 10 francs a day, with wonderful views. A room with a ‘superb’ view (p.256).

Chapter 16. Florence

Life at the Pension Nardini which is cold and dreary, with a group of Scandinavian guests and a German family. Aaron likes being detached, solo. It is November and rainy. He tours Florence in the dark and wet and is inspired. The Palazzo Vecchio, the Piazza della Signoria, Michelangelo’s David, ‘the genius [in the sense of presiding spirit] of Florence’ (p.253). This triggers a bonkers paean to men and masculinity.

He went out, he found the Piazza della Signoria packed with men: but all, all men. And all farmers, land-owners and land-workers. The curious, fine-nosed Tuscan farmers, with their half-sardonic, amber-coloured eyes. Their curious individuality, their clothes worn so easy and reckless, their hats with the personal twist. Their curious full oval cheeks, their tendency to be too fat, to have a belly and heavy limbs. Their close-sitting dark hair. And above all, their sharp, almost acrid, mocking expression, the silent curl of the nose, the eternal challenge, the rock-bottom unbelief, and the subtle fearlessness. The dangerous, subtle, never-dying fearlessness, and the acrid unbelief. But men! Men! A town of men, in spite of everything. The one manly quality, undying, acrid fearlessness. The eternal challenge of the unquenched human soul. Perhaps too acrid and challenging today, when there is nothing left to challenge. But men – who existed without apology and without justification. Men who would neither justify themselves nor apologize for themselves. Just men. The rarest thing left in our sweet Christendom. (p.254)

The gays invite him to a posh dinner which consists of Francis and Angus, and a writer, James Argyle (‘a finely built, heavy man of fifty or more’), and little Algy Constable (‘small and frail, somewhat shaky,’), and tiny Louis Mee, and deaf (Jewish) Walter Rosen. They get drunk and talk rubbish. Lawrence is really bad at middle class dinner conversation. He takes to old Argyle.

Next day he goes to a group lunch at Algy’s, talks to some ancient Italian beau, Signor di Lanti, then the Marchesa del Torre, an American woman from the Southern States, who had lived most of her life in Europe, who seems to Aaron like a modern Cleopatra brooding, bereft of her Anthony, although her husband is there, Manfredi, the Marchese, a little intense Italian in a colonel’s grey uniform, he fought in the war the full four years. He and his wife are musicians (piano and singer) but when Algy asks the nervous Marchesa to play she refuses. Something to do with the war.

The tea party breaks up and the Marchesi and Marchesa invite Aaron to walk to their rented palazzo. it has a grand music room which used to be filled with Saturday mornings of classical music. The small, bosomy (‘a full-breasted, soft-skinned woman’), nervous, chainsmoking Marchesa confides in Aaron that music makes her feel sick: it’s the clutter of notes in chords, it feels like too much. At which point Aaron reveals that he has his flute in his coat pocket and she asks him to play. He goes into the big empty music room, tells the colonel to leave the lights off to continue the mystique, and plays. This is the only description of his playing in the book.

There, in the darkness of the big room, he put his flute to his lips, and began to play. It was a clear, sharp, lilted run-and-fall of notes, not a tune in any sense of the word, and yet a melody, a bright, quick sound of pure animation, a bright, quick, animate noise, running and pausing. It was like a bird’s singing, in that it had no human emotion or passion or intention or meaning—a ripple and poise of animate sound. But it was unlike a bird’s singing, in that the notes followed clear and single one after the other, in their subtle gallop… What Aaron was playing was not of his own invention. It was a bit of mediaeval phrasing written for the pipe and the viol. It made the piano seem a ponderous, nerve-wracking steam-roller of noise, and the violin, as we know it, a hateful wire-drawn nerve-torturer. (p.271)

All this melts something in the Marchesa and Aaron and she have an unspoken bond. Now we learn that she feels horribly trapped by her kind, rational husband and wants to escape from the dungeon of human conventions. Are she and Aaron going to have an affair?

Aaron takes his leave, promising to return another evening with his flute, and flies out into the dark town with a rush of excitement. He is jostled by mobs of soldiers and then realises someone has picked his pocket. Once back at his hotel room he double checks all his coats but it’s definitely gone, his wallet with some letters and personal things about £12 in sterling and lire, all his money. And it happened because he rushed out into the streets in a state of excitement, of emotion, having opened himself, exposed himself, let his guard down.

This reminds us of his ramblings back in part one, when Lilly found him collapsed in Covent Garden, where he blamed his fever not on the flu but on having given in to Josephine’s emotions. If this novel is anything it is (half-heartedly) about one man’s attempt to remain aloof, independent, and self contained.

And Aaron never forgot. After this, it became essential to him to feel that the sentinel stood guard in his own heart. He felt a strange unease the moment he was off his guard. Asleep or awake, in the midst of the deepest passion or the suddenest love, or in the throes of greatest excitement or bewilderment, somewhere, some corner of himself was awake to the fact that the sentinel of the soul must not sleep, no, never, not for one instant. (p.275)

Chapter 17. High Up Over The Cathedral Square

Still in Florence. With no explanation Rawdon Lilly the writer has appeared and the chapter opens with him and Aaron sitting on the balcony of Argyle’s loggia, in the autumn sunshine, rhapsodising over the beauty of Florence. Apparently they just bumped into each other in the street, in the Via Nationale. The little Marchese arrives and is shown through the low window onto the balcony. Argyle serves the last of his whiskey, then tea. They have a rubbish Lawrence conversation, for example when Aaron says he came to Florence by accident the others tut and say there is no such thing as accident: a man is drawn by his fate. Worse, the Marchese launches into a long, a really long, disquisition about the imbalance of male and female desire in marriage.

‘Our Catholic religion tried to keep the young girls in convents, and innocent, before marriage. So that with their minds they should not know, and should not start this terrible thing, this woman’s desire over a man, beforehand. This desire which starts in a woman’s head, when she knows, and which takes a man for her use, for her service. This is Eve. Ah, I hate Eve. I hate her, when she knows, and when she wills. I hate her when she will make of me that which serves her desire.—She may love me, she may be soft and kind to me, she may give her life for me. But why? Only because I am hers. I am that thing which does her most intimate service. She can see no other in me. And I may be no other to her…’

And much more in the same ilk.

‘You are quite right, my boy,’ said Argyle. ‘You are quite right. They’ve got the start of us, the women: and we’ve got to canter when they say gee-up. I—oh, I went through it all. But I broke the shafts and smashed the matrimonial cart, I can tell you, and I didn’t care whether I smashed her up along with it or not… And women oh, they are the very hottest hell once they get the start of you. There’s nothing they won’t do to you, once they’ve got you. Nothing they won’t do to you. Especially if they love you. Then you may as well give up the ghost: or smash the cart behind you, and her in it. Otherwise she will just harry you into submission, and make a dog of you, and cuckold you under your nose. And you’ll submit. Oh, you’ll submit, and go on calling her my darling. Or else, if you won’t submit, she’ll do for you. Your only chance is to smash the shafts, and the whole matrimonial cart. Or she’ll do for you. For a woman has an uncanny, hellish strength – she’s a she-bear and a wolf, is a woman when she’s got the start of you. Oh, it’s a terrible experience, if you’re not a bourgeois, and not one of the knuckling-under money-making sort.’ (p.286)

This is misogynist tripe, isn’t it? When something similar – the struggle between the sexes – is dramatised in ‘Women in Love’, it feels vital and penetrating to some archetypal depth. Here, in the mouths of a bunch of grumpy old men sitting round drinking whiskey, whining that ‘these days’ women are in charge and men come running like dogs, it sounds like sexist bullshit.

The Marchese goes on to explain that in the good old days a man could retreat from his bitch-wife and go after a younger woman, innocent, easier to dominate. But nowadays even the young women are ‘modern women’ – ‘Terrible thing, the modern woman,’ put in Argyle. Then Lilly repeats what we take to be Lawrence’s position, because it has recurred throughout the novel, is its central theme (insofar as it has one):

‘Can’t one live with one’s wife, and be fond of her: and with one’s friends, and enjoy their company: and with the world and everything, pleasantly: and yet know that one is alone? Essentially, at the very core of me, alone. Eternally alone. And choosing to be alone. Not sentimental or lonely. Alone, choosing to be alone, because by one’s own nature one is alone. The being with another person is secondary…’ (p.289)

Chapter 18. The Marchesa

Aaron goes for dinner with the Marchese and Marchesa. She is so made-up he is scared of her and her sexy outfit.

Her beautiful woman’s legs, slightly glistening, duskily. His one abiding instinct was to touch them, to kiss them. He had never known a woman to exercise such power over him. It was a bare, occult force, something he could not cope with.

Aaron says he’s been to the Uffizi Gallery and seen Botticelli’s The Birth of Venus which gives rise to (yet another) discussion about womanhood, specifically whether Venus is a type of the ‘modern woman’ in her fake innocence, pretending not to know too much. There is a heavy atmosphere of seduction and Aaron feels himself being seduced, no matter how hard he knows he needs to remain aloof, separate and independent.

After an exquisite dessert of persimmons, they go out onto the palazzo terrace. The Marchesa stands so close she is touching him as she points out the window of his apartment in the pensione, not too far away. ‘My window is always open,’ says Aaron as she stands so close they’re touching, and he knows they will become lovers. He goes into the music room and plays the flute again, which has a powerful physical impact on her.

And the music of the flute came quick, rather brilliant like a call-note, or like a long quick message, half command. To her it was like a pure male voice—as a blackbird’s when he calls: a pure male voice, not only calling, but telling her something, telling her something, and soothing her soul to sleep. It was like the fire-music putting Brunnhilde to sleep. But the pipe did not flicker and sink. It seemed to cause a natural relaxation in her soul, a peace. Perhaps it was more like waking to a sweet, morning awakening, after a night of tormented, painful tense sleep.

But when he asks the Marchesa to sing, she does a couple of verses of a French song, but with her voice faltering and then failing. So Aaron takes up the music and plays it on the flute and after a moment she joins in and is wafted on his notes, is liberated, experiences a wonderful creative elation. This is the song.

When the song is over there is an embarrassed silence. The Marchesa is liberated and exultant but there is tension between the men because the Marchese knows Aaron has achieved what he could never manage, and Aaron feels he now ‘owns’ the woman.

And Aaron said in his heart, what a goodly woman, what a woman to taste and enjoy. Ah, what a woman to enjoy! And was it not his privilege? Had he not gained it? His manhood, or rather his maleness, rose powerfully in him, in a sort of mastery. He felt his own power, he felt suddenly his own virile title to strength and reward. Suddenly, and newly flushed with his own male super-power, he was going to have his reward. The woman was his reward. (p.300)

Aaron is consumed with lust but the husband is sitting right there (like a wizened old monkey, in Aaron’s view) so he politely takes his leave. Back in his room, he regards his flute and humorously recalls Lilly calling it Aaron’s rod. Well, it’s about to flower alright!

He reflects that he has for so long been hard and unyielding but now is being melted. This would be more effective if we hadn’t observed him not really being hard and unyielding but just good-naturedly indifferent, floating and drifting from place to place.

And now came his desire back. But strong, fierce as iron. Like the strength of an eagle with the lightning in its talons. Something to glory in, something overweening, the powerful male passion, arrogant, royal, Jove’s thunderbolt. Aaron’s black rod of power, blossoming again with red Florentine lilies and fierce thorns. He moved about in the splendour of his own male lightning, invested in the thunder of the male passion-power. He had got it back, the male godliness, the male godhead.

Deeply in lust he goes back the next morning to see her, politely asking to see her book of chansons, and she stands close to him as he leafs through them, and he offers to play her one. But the connection of the day before isn’t there. He stops, they sit, the tension becomes unbearable and he asks straight out: Shall we be lovers? She says yes. Where? She says in her bedroom. She takes him upstairs and shows him the door then asks him to wait ten minutes. He gives her fifteen then opens the door and enters. She is in bed with her back to him.

But the sex isn’t as he’d hoped. In bed she isn’t full and womanly but clings to him like a child. And – the great issue which has resonated through the book – doesn’t surrender herself to him. Which explains why, after a doze, he wants to get away, to escape, to disentangle himself. She begs to see him again but he wants to flee. Silly man.

He gets out as quickly as he can and, in the classic Lawrence style, decides he hates her but, just as characteristically, tries to resist his impulse.

And in his male spirit he felt himself hating her: hating her deeply, damnably. But he said to himself: ‘No, I won’t hate her. I won’t hate her.’

He had received a wry letter from Sir William asking how his providence or fate was turning out. Aaron goes to the post office and writes a bitter reply.

‘I don’t want my Fate or my Providence to treat me well. I don’t want kindness or love. I don’t believe in harmony and people loving one another. I believe in the fight and in nothing else. I believe in the fight which is in everything. And if it is a question of women, I believe in the fight of love, even if it blinds me. And if it is a question of the world, I believe in fighting it and in having it hate me, even if it breaks my legs. I want the world to hate me, because I can’t bear the thought that it might love me. For of all things love is the most deadly to me, and especially from such a repulsive world as I think this is…’ (p.308)

And so dinner and to bed, alone, in blessed independence. If he didn’t want to feel like this, why did he cave in to lust? In the words of the song, ‘if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.’

Chapter 19. Cleopatra but not Anthony

Not knowing what to do, Aaron takes a train out to the countryside and has a vision.

He lay and watched tall cypresses breathing and communicating, faintly moving and as it were walking in the small wind. And his soul seemed to leave him and to go far away, far back, perhaps, to where life was all different and time passed otherwise than time passes now. As in clairvoyance he perceived it: that our life is only a fragment of the shell of life. That there has been and will be life, human life such as we do not begin to conceive. Much that is life has passed away from men, leaving us all mere bits. In the dark, mindful silence and inflection of the cypress trees, lost races, lost language, lost human ways of feeling and of knowing. Men have known as we can no more know, have felt as we can no more feel. Great life-realities gone into the darkness. But the cypresses commemorate. In the afternoon, Aaron felt the cypresses rising dark about him, like so many high visitants from an old, lost, lost subtle world, where men had the wonder of demons about them, the aura of demons, such as still clings to the cypresses, in Tuscany. (p.310)

Whether you like this goes a long way to answering whether you like Lawrence or not. It reminds me of the passages in St Mawr where its owners sense that the horse has seen more, known more, than they ever can; or again the opening of England, My England, where the old cottage has seen more traumatic events than the current occupants can hope to understand.

Anyway, there are pages of Aaron rationalising his feelings to himself, lengthy justifications that he is a husband, even if it’s to a woman who was trapping him (Lottie) and so cannot be a lover, and all women want nowadays is a lover, and so blethering on. He cannot see what is obvious to us which is that he was blinded by lust, seduced the woman, had one shag and, having achieved his aim, is happy to dump her. Standard male behaviour, in other words.

But next day he goes to see her, finds her with guests, is polite till they leave, and then asks if they can just be friends, not lovers. You see, he is married etc etc. And she says yes. Then they play some music together, the husband comes home and finds them, he joins in on the piano, then the men go through sheet music finding things to play at the next music Saturday.

The Lillys and many others are at the Saturday morning music and it irritates him to see her playing the hostess, treating him like everyone else. She invites him for dinner the next day, Sunday. It’s a week since they slept together and all his caution is being over-ridden by his loins. The old lust rises, hoping his ‘rod’ will blossom again.

So imagine his frustration when he arrives for dinner and discovers the guest of honour is the venerable old English authoress, Corrina Wade, talking of the old ideas and old ways as if no cataclysmic war had shattered them forever; plus an old English snob, Mr ffrench, fussy and precious like an old maid. These feel like caricatures of real people.

Eventually these old fossils leave our lovers alone and the Marchesa asks if he will stay. He says yes. Gives her 15 minutes to get ready. Sleeps with her. Once again is overcome by a desperate need to get away, to be alone.

Lawrence goes into detail on two points. She is scared of his penis.

Strange, she was afraid of him! Afraid of him as of a fetish! Fetish afraid, and fetish-fascinated! Or was her fear only a delightful game of cat and mouse? Or was the fear genuine, and the delight the greater: a sort of sacrilege? The fear, and the dangerous, sacrilegious power over that which she feared. (p.318)

I’ve slept with women who refused to acknowledge that the whole thing involved a penis, refused to touch it, mention it, or acknowledge what was going on, so I identify with Aaron’s perplexity. Second thing is that almost the best bit, for la Marchesa, is afterwards curling up on his chest, snuggling into his chest, like a child wanting to be protected. He speculates that maybe the sex is the means to what she really wants, which is this comfort and reassurance. Daddy.

In line with the book’s theme of women triumphing over men, Aaron feels she uses him and his rod to achieve her pleasure. He is a tool, a means, a ‘magic implement’. She uses him with the skill of a high priestess, sacrificing a victim. He associates himself with the many lovers Cleopatra was said to enjoy and then have killed in the morning.

Chapter 20. The Broken Rod

Next day it rains and he stays indoors copying out music. Well into the evening, 9pm, he ventures out towards the cafe in the Piazza Vittoria Emmanuele which is the centre of Florence’s nightlife. En route he sees three men crouching suspiciously over a dark form with a flaming torch. He avoids them but they come trotting up the ally he takes and he panics that he’s going to be mugged but they just trot by carrying a stretcher and, presumably, a body.

At the cafe he is spotted by 50-something Argyle, drunk, who hauls him over to a table where sit Lilly and a newcomer named Levison. Levison tells them there was a big socialist protest earlier in the day and when the head of the carabinieri told them not to go down a half-built road, someone shot him dead on his horse after which all hell broke loose.

This triggers Argyle to make the ludicrously drunken statement that what the world needs is the revival of slavery, for pretty much everyone in society. Earnest young Levison asks who would be these slaves?

‘Everybody, my dear chap: beginning with the idealists and the theorising Jews, and after them your nicely-bred gentlemen, and then perhaps, your profiteers and Rothschilds, and all politicians, and ending up with the proletariat,’ said Argyle.
‘Then who would be the masters? — the professional classes, doctors and lawyers and so on?’
‘What? Masters. They would be the sewerage slaves, as being those who had made most smells.’

You can see how, in a world shattered by war, where all traditional values have been overthrown, and where the huge experiment of Bolshevik communism in Russia was just commencing, all social theories are up for grabs and many of them would involve overthrowing the useless ‘democracy’ which triggered the war and instituting something more scientific, the rule of one really strong man. Out of this melee emerged Mussolini’s Fascism a few years later.

Levison cuts across this ludicrous suggestion and earnestly points out that ‘socialism is the inevitable next step…’ This also must have been a widespread belief among the kind of people who waste their time thinking about politics. This ‘discussion’ clearly only exists so that Lilly can ridicule both types of talk, in classically Lawrentian – that’s to say irrational and subjective – language.

LILLY: ‘The idea and the ideal has for me gone dead — dead as carrion —’
LEVISON: ‘Which idea, which ideal precisely?’
LILLY: ‘The ideal of love, the ideal that it is better to give than to receive, the ideal of liberty, the ideal of the brotherhood of man, the ideal of the sanctity of human life, the ideal of what we call goodness, charity, benevolence, public spiritedness, the ideal of sacrifice for a cause, the ideal of unity and unanimity — all the lot — all the whole beehive of ideals — has all got the modern bee-disease, and gone putrid, stinking. — And when the ideal is dead and putrid, the logical sequence is only stink. — Which, for me, is the truth concerning the ideal of good, peaceful, loving humanity and its logical sequence in socialism and equality, equal opportunity or whatever you like.’

Concepts like ‘stink’ and ‘slime’ were to appear more and more in Lawrence’s writing as he became more disgusted with the world and everyone’s turning away from what he saw as the real, primitive, pagan life forces.

Lilly goes on to say that people are insects and instruments and will, eventually, vote for their own slavery as a refuge from facing reality: inferior beings will elect their superior to rule them. This sounds mad but, arguably, is what the German nation did ten years later.

But then Lawrence pulls a trick by having Lilly say he doesn’t believe what he’s just said. He could easily say just the opposite. All he cares is about the primacy of the individual to himself.

‘I’ll tell you the real truth,’ said Lilly. ‘I think every man is a sacred and holy individual, never to be violated; I think there is only one thing I hate to the verge of madness, and that is bullying.’ (p.328)

Things are getting heated when a bomb goes off! That’s not something you expect in a Lawrence novel. The cafe is bombed, glass and chairs and clothes and blood flying everywhere. Stunned, Aaron staggers to his feet, sees men fighting over coats in a corner, finds his amid the pile and discovers the flute is smashed beyond repair.

He staggers out into the street with Lilly (no mention of Argyle or Levison) and they stagger away from the scene down to the river. Nothing in the book so far has effected Aaron like the loss of his flute. Lilly tells him to chuck it in the Arno, which he does. Lilly tells him he’ll grow a new one, until then he’ll have to do without a rod.

Chapter 21. Words

Aaron wakes from a long complicated dream. Over breakfast he realises he is done. The destruction of his flute-rod marks the end. He could call on numerous contacts (the gay painters, Sir William, the Marchese) and they would simply buy him a new one.

But instead he wants to make a new start in life. And this takes the form of realising he must submit to one man. And the man he chooses is the funny little, ugly, cantankerous Lilly. Not to ‘the quicksands of woman or the stinking bogs of society’, to one odd man.

Burgess and Aldington explain this dramatises the real-world situation in which, during the war, Lawrence lured John Middleton Murray and his wife Katherine Mansfield to live with them on a commune in Cornwall, and tried to persuade Murray to become blood brothers with him. It reflects the extremely intense notion of male camaraderie which Lawrence espoused, and dramatised more successfully in the very close relationship between Gerald Crich and Rupert Birkin in ‘Women in Love’.

At that moment Lilly pops round. He explains he’s going away. Screw society and politics, he can’t influence any of that. He has to be true to himself like a migrating bird. Maybe he’ll go to a different continent, he’s tired of this one.

He persuades Aaron to catch a train with him out to the country and they have lunch at a lovely rural inn by a stream where Italian boys are swimming. Aaron asks Lilly what he’s going to do and this is the trigger for Lawrence’s last great sermon of the book. Lilly tells him he can’t lose himself in a woman, in humanity or in God. At the end of the day you only have yourself.

‘You can’t lose yourself. You can try. But you might just as well try to swallow yourself. You’ll only bite your fingers off in the attempt. You can’t lose yourself, neither in woman nor humanity nor in God. You’ve always got yourself on your hands in the end: and a very raw and jaded and humiliated and nervous-neurasthenic self it is, too, in the end.

‘You can’t lose yourself, so stop trying. The responsibility is on your own shoulders all the time, and no God which man has ever struck can take it off. You ARE yourself and so BE yourself. Stick to it and abide by it. Passion or no passion, ecstasy or no ecstasy, urge or no urge, there’s no goal outside you, where you can consummate like an eagle flying into the sun, or a moth into a candle. There’s no goal outside you—and there’s no God outside you. No God, whom you can get to and rest in. None.

‘There is no goal outside you. None.

‘There is only one thing, your own very self. So you’d better stick to it. You can’t be any bigger than just yourself, so you needn’t drag God in. You’ve got one job, and no more. There inside you lies your own very self, like a germinating egg, your precious Easter egg of your own soul. There it is, developing bit by bit, from one single egg-cell which you were at your conception in your mother’s womb, on and on to the strange and peculiar complication in unity which never stops till you die—if then. You’ve got an innermost, integral unique self, and since it’s the only thing you have got or ever will have, don’t go trying to lose it. You’ve got to develop it, from the egg into the chicken, and from the chicken into the one-and-only phoenix, of which there can only be one at a time in the universe. There can only be one of you at a time in the universe—and one of me. So don’t forget it. Your own single oneness is your destiny. Your destiny comes from within, from your own self-form. And you can’t know it beforehand, neither your destiny nor your self-form. You can only develop it. You can only stick to your own very self, and never betray it. And by so sticking, you develop the one and only phoenix of your own self, and you unfold your own destiny.’

‘If your soul’s urge urges you to love, then love. But always know that what you are doing is the fulfilling of your own soul’s impulse. It’s no good trying to act by prescription: not a bit. And it’s no use getting into frenzies. If you’ve got to go in for love and passion, go in for them. But they aren’t the goal. They’re a mere means: a life-means, if you will. The only goal is the fulfilling of your own soul’s active desire and suggestion. Be passionate as much as ever it is your nature to be passionate, and deeply sensual as far as you can be. Small souls have a small sensuality, deep souls a deep one. But remember, all the time, the responsibility is upon your own head, it all rests with your own lonely soul, the responsibility for your own action.

‘Your soul inside you is your only Godhead. It develops your actions within you as a tree develops its own new cells. And the cells push on into buds and boughs and flowers. And these are your passion and your acts and your thoughts and expressions, your developing consciousness. You don’t know beforehand, and you can’t. You can only stick to your own soul through thick and thin.

‘You are your own Tree of Life, roots and limbs and trunk. Somewhere within the wholeness of the tree lies the very self, the quick: its own innate Holy Ghost. And this Holy Ghost puts forth new buds, and pushes past old limits, and shakes off a whole body of dying leaves. And the old limits hate being empassed, and the old leaves hate to fall. But they must, if the tree-soul says so…’

But this isn’t all. This is just the sermon about love. There’s an equal amount about the centrality of power. Lilly sees power not as a superficial will to power like Nietzsche’s, not as a conscious thing, but as a submission to the deep power urge in our core. And this power urge comes out of our deep core and we (men) must submit to it and then women, too, must submit to the man’s power urge.

‘Once the love-mode changes, as change it must, for we are worn out and becoming evil in its persistence, then the other mode will take place in us. And there will be profound, profound obedience in place of this love-crying, obedience to the incalculable power-urge. And men must submit to the greater soul in a man, for their guidance: and women must submit to the positive power-soul in man, for their being.’

Aaron the sceptic, says this will never happen. Lilly says oh yes it will. And the book ends on an ominous and cryptic note.

‘All men say, they want a leader. Then let them in their souls submit to some greater soul than theirs. At present, when they say they want a leader, they mean they want an instrument, like Lloyd George. A mere instrument for their use. But it’s more than that. It’s the reverse. It’s the deep, fathomless submission to the heroic soul in a greater man. You, Aaron, you too have the need to submit. You, too, have the need livingly to yield to a more heroic soul, to give yourself. You know you have. And you know it isn’t love. It is life-submission. And you know it. But you kick against the pricks. And perhaps you’d rather die than yield. And so, die you must. It is your affair.’
There was a long pause. Then Aaron looked up into Lilly’s face. It was dark and remote-seeming. It was like a Byzantine eikon at the moment.
‘And whom shall I submit to?’ he said.
‘Your soul will tell you,’ replied the other.

Thoughts on part 1

The thinness of satire

The first part feels like a try-out of Huxleyan social satire. Lawrence has the characters, alright, but he has completely the wrong temperament for satire, because Lawrence is rarely if ever humorous. Mostly he radiates seething contempt for the upper class types he portrays.

His dialogue is rarely acute, deft and skewering. All his characters tend to speak in the blunt, assertive tones of their author. Almost any other author I can think of is sharper, with the possible exception of Conrad. Instead of using dialogue for precise or witty digs, stabs and insights, Lawrence gives his characters endless arguments, which aren’t funny or particularly informative: take Josephine’s pointless vapourings about revolution, or Lilly and Jim’s squabbling about Christianity, or Lilly and Aaron’s argument about the ‘true’ meaning of the war. Or just works up the dialogue through pointless repetition and has characters laugh at their own non-existent jokes. In part two the dinner party conversation at Lord and Lady Franks feels heavy and contrived and absolutely unfunny.

Snobbishness

Alongside the supposed satire, Lawrence the miner’s son displays a rather shameful wish to be in-the-know with the fancy foreign tags and exaggerated slang of the upper middle classes. Burgess freely accuses him of snobbishness.

Thus Lawrence has not just his characters but the narrator himself drop into French: poupée, pas seul, de haut en bas, merde, amour, a la bonne heure, bonne bouche, coeur à coeur, dégagé, seul, moue, comble, eprise, maquereau, pis-aller, ebloui, littérateur – or, in the Italian half of the book, into Italian: natura morta, bella figura, milordo, signori, a riverderci, salota, niente – with some splashes of German thrown in.

And alongside all this, the jolly slang of the Edwardian posh: good egg, champion idea, I say, rather, and so on, which often sounds ludicrous alongside the primeval, hyperbolic passages.

Class consciousness

Connected with Lawrence’s social climbing impulse is his unremitting sense of class consciousness. With Jim Bricknell and his friends, with Sir William and his guests, with the two young gay artists, Aaron is never for a moment unaware of coming from a different class. It’s vivid the way he is deeply uncomfortable being driven in Sir William’s chauffeur-driven car and what a relief it is to get out into the piazza full of common people. Or entering the train:

Aaron got his seat, and the porter brought on his bags… Aaron gave the tip uneasily. He always hated tipping – it seemed humiliating both ways. (p.236)

The issue is then spelled out:

Aaron had lived long enough to know that as far as manhood and intellect went, nay, even education – he was not the inferior of the two young ‘gentlemen’. He knew quite well that, as far as intrinsic nature went, they did not imagine him an inferior: rather the contrary. They had rather an exaggerated respect for him and his life-power, and even his origin. And yet – they had the inestimable cash advantage – and they were going to keep it. They knew it was nothing more than an artificial cash superiority. But they gripped it all the more intensely. They were the upper middle classes. They were Eton and Oxford. And they were going to hang on to their privileges. In these days, it is a fool who abdicates before he’s forced to… They were being so awfully nice. And inwardly they were not condescending. But socially, they just had to be. The world is made like that. It wasn’t their own private fault. It was no fault at all. It was just the mode in which they were educated, the style of their living. (p.236)

References to the war

The First World War had only just finished and haunts the book which is peppered with references to its aftermath. The opening sentences of the novel are:

There was a large, brilliant evening star in the early twilight, and underfoot the earth was half frozen. It was Christmas Eve. Also the War was over, and there was a sense of relief that was almost a new menace. A man felt the violence of the nightmare released now into the general air.

Aaron feels everything has changed but nothing has changed.

To Aaron Sisson, this was home, this was Christmas: the unspeakably familiar. The war over, nothing was changed.

But the appearance and atmosphere have changed.

He crossed the fields towards the little town, which once more fumed its lights under the night. The country ran away, rising on his right hand. It was no longer a great bank of darkness. Lights twinkled freely here and there, though forlornly, now that the war-time restrictions were removed. It was no glitter of pre-war nights, pit-heads glittering far-off with electricity. Neither was it the black gulf of the war darkness: instead, this forlorn sporadic twinkling.

Here’s the impact on the town’s Christmas market.

The war had killed the little market of the town. As he passed the market place on the brow, Aaron noticed that there were only two miserable stalls. But people crowded just the same. There was a loud sound of voices, men’s voices. Men pressed round the doorways of the public-houses.

In the scene at Jim’s Albany apartments:

All the men, except Aaron, had been through the war in some way or other. But here they were, in the old setting exactly, the old bohemian routine.

Overall, there’s a sense the war has spoiled and degraded things and yet the people carry on in the same old routines, only shabbier. Like Vladimir and Estragon in part two of Waiting for Godot.

And then the character of Herbertson, the bluff, posh Guards officer who has been damaged by the war and has to talk to Lilly, five pages of genuinely harrowing war stories. (Like a lot of the book) this passage feels like it’s been arbitrarily shoe-horned into the narrative, but is harrowing nonetheless.

In Italy, something comparable.

At the little outdoor tables of the cafes a very few drinkers sat before empty coffee-cups. Most of the shops were shut. It was too soon after the war for life to be flowing very fast. The feeling of emptiness, of neglect, of lack of supplies was evident everywhere.

An Italian waiter asks:

‘What would you like to drink? Wine? Chianti? Or white wine? Or beer?’—The old-fashioned ‘Sir’ was dropped. It is too old-fashioned now, since the war. (p.226)

Angus:

‘Have a Grand Marnier,’ he said. ‘I don’t know how bad it is. Everything is bad now. They lay it down to the war as well. It used to be quite a decent drink. What the war had got to do with bad liqueurs, I don’t know.’ (p.230)

Aaron likes Florence because it is half empty:

Altogether Aaron was pleased with himself, for being in Florence. Those were early days after the war, when as yet very few foreigners had returned, and the place had the native sombreness and intensity. So that our friend did not mind being alone. (p.255)

The Marchesa del Torre refuses to sing at Algy’s tea party because the war has ended her ability to sing in a heartfelt carefree way – ‘another disaster added to the war list.’

Summary criticism

The character of Aaron Sisson is never properly developed. Through the first 11 chapters he is a kind of bumbling, well-meaning non-entity. His appeal is his smiling indifference to the people he meets and whatever they say to him, up to and including not caring much when Josephine asks him to kiss her, and not being very upset when Lilly kicks him out after his bout of flu.

In the second half everything changes and he is given pages of deep soul stuff like the male protagonists of the Rainbow and Women in Love but it fails to persuade. The light triviality of the satirical scenes undermines, renders implausible the would-be deep moments.

Beneath all this lurks the fundamental problem: the theme most frequently expressed, and so the ostensible theme of the book, seems to be this thing about men and women, consisting of two parts: 1) that modern women have the whip hand over men, who submit themselves like dogs; and 2) the best philosophy of life is to remain absolutely independent, free of ties, untrammelled – even if you have a sexual affair with a woman not to submit but to keep your essential core intact.

These are potentially interesting, if often garbled and sometimes laughable, themes but the book’s problem is that Aaron Sisson is too flimsy a character to bear them.

In his introduction, Richard Aldington says ‘Aaron’s Rod’ was a hastily written text, similar in this respect to Lawrence’s novels The Lost Girl (1920) and Kangaroo (1923). What these lesser novels demonstrate is the immense rewards achieved by Lawrence in the books he did rewrite, over and again – ‘Sons and Lovers’, ‘The Rainbow’ and ‘Women in Love’. In those books there is a great unity of characters and themes and scenes in which the themes are fully and deeply dramatised. By contrast, ‘Aaron’s Rod’ contains characters and scenes and themes which are fairly memorable but fall apart like pick-up sticks; remain fatally unintegrated and fragmentary.


Credit

‘Aaron’s Rod’ by D. H. Lawrence was first published in the UK by William Heinemann in 1922. Page references are to the 1972 Penguin Classics paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews

The Secret Agent: A Simple Tale by Joseph Conrad (1907)

There is a sort of lucidity proper to extravagant language.

Joseph Conrad burst upon the literary world in 1895 with his first novel, ‘Almayer’s Folly’. It announced an author with a detailed knowledge of the life of merchant seamen and traders far away in remote ports and settlements of the Far East, a writer with a florid, exotic style, and a man obsessed with futility and death. For the next nine years Conrad produced a series of short stories and novellas all with more or less the same distant setting, themes and style.

But Conrad had ambitions to move out of this initial niche and surprised everyone in 1904 by publishing his longest novel, ‘Nostromo’, which switches geographical location and subject matter entirely, being about revolutionaries in South America.

‘The Secret Agent’ is an even more conscious change of scene and subject matter from Conrad’s initial brand, in at least three ways:

  1. almost all his previous novellas and short stories were set in the Far East, in the ports of Thailand or Malaysia or on the high seas; this was his first story set entirely in the capital of his adoptive country
  2. most of the novellas and short stories up to this point focused on one dominating protagonist, often named in the title: Almayer, Peter Willems, Kurtz in Heart of Darkness, Jim in Lord Jim, Captain MacWhirr in Typhoon, Falk and so on; ‘Secret Agent’ marks a break by being equally about a handful of four or five characters; it is far more collegiate, there is no one dominating figure
  3. Conrad’s style is very sober and reined in – still fluent and loquacious but noticeably less so than in his ‘exotic’ writings; it’s still sometimes florid, sometimes obscure, but it’s as if it’s sobered down to suit London’s chilly, foggy location

As to the subject matter. ‘The Secret Agent’ plunges us straight into the world of London’s underworld of professional revolutionaries and anarchists along with the police and officials who combat them. At least it plunges into Conrad’s vision of those things. How accurately the book relates to any such underworld in Edwardian London is obviously a matter for history specialists. In practice, like most novels ‘The Secret Agent’ feels very small, focusing on a handful of characters – the secret agent, his wife and brother-in-law; just four named professional revolutionaries; and three representatives of the police and Scotland Yard.

Right at the end we are told that it is set in 1886. The Verlocs were married on 24 June 1879 and their marriage lasted seven years till the events the story narrates.

Characters

Adolf Verloc is a professional agent provocateur. Contrary to the image that evokes, he is a fat, slothful, lazy man. He maintains a dingy shop selling dirty postcards and French novels, helped out by his wife, Winnie. They’ve been married for seven years. They met when he took rooms in a boarding house run by her mother in Belgravia, and presented himself as an attractive means of escaping her narrow slavey life.

Now her old mother lives in the back room. Also living with them is Winnie’s younger brother, Stevie, who is ‘simple’ and given simple tasks around the house and shop. When not doing simple chores he sits at a deal table:

drawing circles, circles, circles; innumerable circles, concentric, eccentric; a coruscating whirl of circles that by their tangled multitude of repeated curves, uniformity of form, and confusion of intersecting lines suggested a rendering of cosmic chaos, the symbolism of a mad art attempting the inconceivable.

Winnie knows Verloc has a small circle of very intense friends. What she doesn’t realise is that they are professional revolutionaries. They are:

Karl Yundt:

The all but moribund veteran of dynamite wars had been a great actor in his time—actor on platforms, in secret assemblies, in private interviews. The famous terrorist had never in his life raised personally as much as his little finger against the social edifice. He was no man of action; he was not even an orator of torrential eloquence, sweeping the masses along in the rushing noise and foam of a great enthusiasm. With a more subtle intention, he took the part of an insolent and venomous evoker of sinister impulses which lurk in the blind envy and exasperated vanity of ignorance, in the suffering and misery of poverty, in all the hopeful and noble illusions of righteous anger, pity, and revolt. The shadow of his evil gift clung to him yet like the smell of a deadly drug in an old vial of poison, emptied now, useless, ready to be thrown away upon the rubbish-heap of things that had served their time.

Michaelis, first name unmentioned, who has spent 15 years in prison because of his involvement with a cack-handed attempt to rescue some prisoners from a police van which went wrong, described on page 96. Now he is now morbidly obese, weighing maybe 18 stone.

He had come out of a highly hygienic prison round like a tub, with an enormous stomach and distended cheeks of a pale, semi-transparent complexion, as though for fifteen years the servants of an outraged society had made a point of stuffing him with fattening foods in a damp and lightless cellar.

Michaelis has an upper-class fan, an aristocratic lady who has taken the fat revolutionist into her salon as a conversation piece, and then sets him up in a moss-covered cottage to write his memoirs, Autobiography of a Prisoner (p.103).

Comrade Alexander ‘Tom’ Ossipon, nicknamed ‘the Doctor’, an ex-medical student without a degree; afterwards a wandering lecturer to working-men’s associations upon the socialistic aspects of hygiene; author of a popular quasi-medical study entitled ‘The Corroding Vices of the Middle Classes’; special delegate of the mysterious Red Committee, together with Yundt and Michaelis.

There’s a fourth who sits to one side of these three and despises them, known only as the Professor, because he is an expert in explosives.

His title to that designation consisted in his having been once assistant demonstrator in chemistry at some technical institute. He quarrelled with the authorities upon a question of unfair treatment.

The Professor thinks the other three are typical of their groups in that they don’t actually want anything to change, they enjoy feeling like exciting desperados and are trapped by their symbiotic relationship with the very system they claim to despise. Whereas the Professor wants to destroy. In a scene with Ossipon the Professor reveals that he carries a little vial of explosive around with him everywhere and has his left hand permanently on a little detonator in his left pocket. If the police ever try to arrest him, he’ll explode it and take half the street with him.

Ranged against them are some representatives of the British establishment, namely:

  • Chief Inspector Heat of the Special Crimes Department
  • The Assistant Commissioner of the Police
  • The Home Secretary, Sir Ethelred

Police complicity with the revolutionaries

A key and ironic premise of the book is that the police know the names of all the revolutionists. None of them are really secret at all. Inspector Heat knows not just the names but the addresses and usually the day-to-day movements of Michaelis, Yundt, Ossipon, the Professor and many more. In fact the police and the revolutionaries have a sort of working relationship or understanding, what the narrator calls ‘the rules of the game’ (p.105).

This is demonstrated when Heat bumps into the Professor in a side street and they have an uneasy standoff which ends because Heat, for the time being, wants to leave the anarchist alone.

Verloc the provocateur

What none of the revolutionaries nor Heat know is that Verloc is actually a double agent. He is an agent provocateur. Although a member of various Red Councils, a great speaker at socialist meetings and working men’s assemblies, Vice President of The Future of the Proletariat, enthusiastic friend of Ossipon, Yundt and Michaelis – he is in fact in the pay of reactionary, anti-revolutionary foreign embassy and has been for years, 11 years to be precise.

So Verloc is the secret agent of the title.

What kick-starts the plot is that his old handler at this (unnamed) foreign embassy, an old boy named Baron Stott-Wartenheim (‘pessimistic and gullible’) has retired and been replaced in the London embassy by a new go-getter, the First Secretary, Mr Vladimir, ‘a young man with a shaven, big face, sitting in a roomy arm-chair before a vast mahogany writing-table’.

Softly spoken Vladimir tells fat slothful Verloc that the good times are over. The secret service is not a philanthropic institution and Verloc is going to have to start to pull his weight. To be precise, he needs to cause a sensation, a ‘spectacular’, an egregious atrocity,

Why? Because Vladimir and his country are offended that the British authorities are so lax and permissive and ‘liberal’ as to allow countless revolutionaries to thrive in London pretty much untouched, revolutionaries who threaten the basis of his own government, back home. The British police, British society as a whole are, in Vladimir’s view, relaxed and permissive: ‘England lags. This country is absurd with its sentimental regard for individual liberty.’

Therefore Vladimir wants Verloc to commission some kind of spectacular atrocity which will wake up the British authorities and force the police to crack down. The complacent British bourgeoisie needs ‘a jolly good scare’. What is needed is a string of outrages to sting the authorities into a universal repression. Otherwise, Vladimir threatens, his office will stop paying Verloc.

And Vladimir goes further, straying into socio-philosophical territory, when he suggests that his government doesn’t want Verloc to assassinate someone (old hat), or blow up a bank (predictable) but strike at the conceptual foundations of bourgeois society. Which is why he suggests attacking time itself – a bit of dialogue which, for a moment, threatened to turn the story into a whole different type of novel, some kind of science fiction story. Normality is, however, quickly restored, when Vladimir explains that, in practice he just means blowing up the Greenwich Observatory, home of the meridian which, in a sense, during Britain’s heyday, anchored time zones all round the world.

So that is the setup. A fat, seedy complacent middle-aged ‘revolutionary’ who for over a decade has been pocketing money from a foreign embassy to report on radicals and anarchists in London, is told by his new young handler that he needs to pull his finger out and organise a spectacular ‘outrage’ or the embassy will cut off his funding, which has formed most of his family income…

The Assistant Commissioner connection

To digress for a moment, the novel is full of incongruous complicities. I’ve mentioned the way Inspector Heat knows all the revolutionaries by name and they know him and both sides leave each other alone, according to ‘the rules of the game’.

Higher up the food chain something similar obtains for Inspector Heat’s boss, the Assistant Commissioner of Police. This man was enjoying being a police officer in an imperial colony until he came home and made a good marriage but his new wife didn’t fancy the tropical heat. So he had to pack in his colonial career, stay in London and took the Assistant Commissioner post. He’s had it for 18 months when the narrative begins.

So far, so banal, but the ironic gag Conrad concocts is the notion that the Assistant Commissioner’s wife is supported and mentored by the same posh lady who is Michaelis’s patron. This leads to the humorous situation whereby the Assistant Commissioner attends the same parties as Michaelis, in fact has to stand by while the posh lady sings the praises of the lovely, sweet man, a visionary, a ‘saint’ who simply wants to bring fairness to society and food to the poor etc. The posh lady patron is depicted as irredeemably dim, but the bite to the situation is that the Assistant Commissioner knows that if he is involved in putting Michaelis behind bars, the posh lady will know about it and will never forgive his wife – and his wife will never forgive him.

The Greenwich bomb

Why is all this an issue? Because, with unexpected abruptness, in chapter 4 on page 65 of this 249-page-book, we learn that a bomb has gone off in Greenwich Park. Ossipon tells the Professor about it. Seems some unknown person was carrying a bomb, tripped over a tree root and blew themselves to pieces.

In the next chapter Chief Inspector Heat is called to the scene of the explosion and sees for himself the body blown into myriad pieces as by a demented butcher. Amid the fragments of bloody cloth, Heat discovers a piece which, amazingly, has an address written on it, 32 Brett Street. He pockets it as he walks away for, as an expert on the revolutionary underground, he knows it is the address of Adolf Verloc. The police have interviewed a witness who said she saw two figures come out of the nearby Tube station, a fat older man and a thinner younger one. The reader – well, this reader – immediately realises this is Verloc and Stevie and strongly suspects the person blown to pieces was poor simple Stevie.

(Note: a lot later in the book we are told that precisely a month, a long and aggravating month, separated Verloc’s interview with Mr Vladimir and the tragic bomb blast, p.209.)

The authorities

Heat reports to the Assistant Commissioner for the Police. (This is where we learn that the latter’s wife is friends with the posh lady who supports the obese revolutionist Michaelis and Heat senses his reluctance to place Michaelis in the frame). But, having dispatched Heat, the Assistant Commissioner goes to see his own superior, the Secretary of State, Sir Ethelred.

The depiction of Sir Ethelred, and the charming young man, his principle private secretary who everyone calls ‘Toodles’, this is all done with suavity and humour. Conrad deploys the Dickensian tactic of turning people into objects:

The Assistant Commissioner’s figure before this big and rustic Presence had the frail slenderness of a reed addressing an oak.

But more Dickensian is the association of characters with certain key words which are then drummed home. Thus Michaelis can’t be referred to without the phrase ‘the ticket-of-leave apostle’. And the secretary of state’s key word is ‘expansion’ or ‘expanded’.

Vast in bulk and stature, with a long white face, which, broadened at the base by a big double chin, appeared egg-shaped in the fringe of thin greyish whisker, the great personage seemed an expanding man… A shiny silk hat and a pair of worn gloves lying ready on the end of a long table looked expanded too, enormous.

The big time shift and switch to Winnie

All Conrad’s fictions up to this point deploy sophisticated manipulation of time frames. The narrative never just sets off and follows simple chronological order. In the hands of a narrator like Charles Marlow (who narrates Heart of Darkness, Lord Jim and Youth) the narrative continually interrupts itself to go back a few years, get someone else’s eye-witness account, sometimes juggling multiple time zones and frame narratives.

‘The Secret Agent’ is, on the whole simpler than all that, with the events in one chapter often following on simply from that before – with one big exception. Chapter 8, starting precisely half way through the text goes back in time. I’ve explained how the revolutionists heard about someone blowing themselves up in Greenwich Park as early as page 65, and how Heat visits the crime scene, spots the fragment of fabric with Verloc’s address on it, has an interview with his boss the Assistant Commissioner, who himself is called in to brief the Secretary of State. All this, obviously enough, follows the explosion.

But when we start reading chapter 8 we find ourselves transported back to several weeks before the explosion. In fact the narrative makes what appears to be quite a big digression which I found obscure and hard to follow, to begin with. Suddenly it is describing the motivation of Winnie’s aged mother, Verloc’s mother-in-law, who has decided she needs to move out of the Verloc household and has negotiated with the secretary of a charity for licensed victuallers, moving into one of their almshouses.

There is then another long passage describing how Winnie and Stevie help the old lady pack her bags and ride with her in a hansom cab to her new home (according to the notes, the Licensed Victuallers’ Asylum in Asylum Road, Peckham). This trip is distinguished by Stevie getting very upset at the way the cab driver whips his horse and the cab driver’s rather shamefaced defence of this behaviour.

What is this all about? Well, it’s the start of the novel’s shift to being, not about The Secret Agent but The Secret Agent’s Wife. it’s not only a clever playing with the novel’s timeframes but a switch in its focus. it is the first of a series of chapters in which we see the world from Winnie’s point of view, and get some detail on her feelings for her mother and her brother Stevie. It means that, once her mother is settled in her new cottage, Winnie feels lonely without her in the Verloc home and comes to rely more on Stevie, to think about him more.

I can sympathise with some contemporary critics who wondered why we’re bothering to go in such exquisite detail into the minds and feelings of pretty stupid and pretty insalubrious characters, but this is what the aristocratic and fastidious Conrad wanted to do.

The weeks pass and Winnie carries on feeling more lonely (in the absence of her mother) and more solicitous of Stevie, and also concerned about Verloc who seems to be on edge and anxious all the time. I think we are meant to realise that Winnie’s mother’s departure coincided with Verloc’s meeting with Vladimir and him giving Verloc the ultimatum to do something spectacular.

The effect is to create a dramatic irony in the mind of the reader. We know what’s coming. We have a very strong hunch that Verloc is going to take Stevie to Greenwich Park, with a bomb he’s had the Professor make for him, and commission him with planting it but simple clumsy Stevie is going to trip up and blow himself to smithereens.

So these scenes, as we share Winnie’s feelings for her brother, have a very bleak or tragic effect and this must be the effect Conrad is aiming for. There’s the ‘plot’ – what actually happens – and then there’s how Conrad has arranged it, which is to sidestep all the men he itemised for us in the first part of the book, and shift the whole focus onto poor Winnie.

Stevie goes away

Back in the nitty-gritty of the plot, Verloc suggests that Stevie might like a break from life in Brett Street and so kindly offers to arrange for him to go and stay with Michaelis in the cottage and Kent where the posh lady fan has set him up. Winnie is happy to pack his things and let Verloc take him off.

The two narrative timelines resynchronise

On page 156, a little into chapter 9, the timelines come back together, mesh up, resynchronise, as this digression, Winnie’s timeline, catches up with the ‘main narrative’.

She was alone longer than usual on the day of the attempted bomb outrage in Greenwich Park, because Mr Verloc went out very early that morning and did not come back till nearly dusk.

They mesh up again except that the reader knows (or thinks they know) what happened, namely that Stevie’s been blown to pieces. Which means that, when Verloc returns to the house that evening, every word Winnie utters, no matter how innocent, has a terrible ironic meaning.

The horrible truth: Stevie is dead

Now the reunified narrative picks up pace. Winnie makes dinner for Verloc, who’s come home late. When she asks him where he’s been he blusters, although admitting he’s been to the bank to withdraw all his money, which he’s placed in a pigskin wallet. Why? Because, he tells her, they must flee to the continent.

But he’s still explaining this to a puzzled Winnie when they are surprised by two visitors in quick succession. The first is the Assistant Commissioner himself who insists Verloc go for a walk with him. Shortly afterwards arrives Inspector Heat. Heat is is who produces the fragment of Stevie’s overcoat and shows it to Winnie who recognises it. When she identifies it Heat realises at a stroke that Verloc was the other man the eye witness saw emerge from the Tube and head to the park, Verloc accompanying his simple brother-in-law.

At that moment Verloc re-enters the shop, back from his walk and talk with the Assistant Commissioner. Heat hustles him into the back parlour of the house and shuts the door. Winnie kneels by the door with her ear to the keyhole. And thus she hears her husband confess everything – the plan to blow up the Observatory, obtaining the explosive from the Professor, his taking Stevie and sending him to plant the device, the tragic accident – and her world crashes in ruins around her.

The Assistant Commissioner pays visits

Meanwhile the Assistant Commissioner 1) goes to brief his boss, Sir Etheldred, during which we learned that Verloc has completely confessed to him too, as well as to Heat; 2) goes home, changes then 3) onto a reception given by the lady patron of Michaelis. Here he is introduced to Mr Vladimir. It is a small world – at least it is in books and films which limit the number of characters to the optimum number their audiences can handle.

More importantly, the Assistant Commissioner knows it was Vladimir who intimidated Verloc into commissioning this ridiculous tragedy. Indeed, Vladimir is scaring the posh ladies he likes flirting with by suggesting the Greenwich Park scandal is just the start of a campaign of terror.

When Vladimir leaves the Assistant Commissioner accompanies him and lets him know that Verloc has confessed everything and implicated Vladimir and his embassy. The AC tells him the British authorities want to use it as an excuse to round up all the secret agents and foreign political spies and expel them. In other words, Vladimir and his ilk. Vladimir says no-one will believe the word of such a man in court. The CA isn’t really interested in the court case he just wanted to rattle Vladimir and his rattledness confirms Verloc’s story. Vladimir is the instigator.

Chapter 11

Cut back to Verloc and Winnie at home after Inspector Heat has left. This is a long (28 pages) excruciatingly slow and horrible chapter whose purpose is to contrast the way Verloc more or less dismisses Stevie’s death, regrets Winnie overhearing it all from his and Inspector Heat’s conversation, but now he wants Winnie to pull herself together and wants to make plans. He’ll probably be tried and sent away for two years during which she will have to look after the shop. But then they’ll have to plan what to do on his release, maybe emigrate to America etc.

All this babble is contrasted with the cosmic horror in Winnie’s mind. She only married Verloc because she thought he offered enough money and stability to keep her poor brother safe. All she can think of is that, instead, he walked away with him one fine day in order to murder him. She considers herself utterly released from her marriage, no longer tied in any way to this horrible man, ‘the bargain was at an end’. And so, while Verloc burbles on, blissfully unaware of her complete alienation, of her internal screaming existential crisis, she becomes consumed with the thought of flight.

Throughout the chapter increasing reference is made to the carving knife lying on the table next to the loaf of bread and cold beef which was to form Verloc’s supper. And now, in a trance, Winnie picks it up, walks over to the sofa where Verloc, exhausted, had lain down to rest, and stabs him through the side right into his heart. He barely has time to sigh ‘Don’t’ before he dies.

Chapter 12

Winnie’s shock is slowly penetrated by the sound of Verloc’s blood tick tick ticking from the knife handle onto the floor. Shocked back to her senses she has a vivid premonition of the rope going round her neck as she is hanged, and so fastens her veil and staggers into the street with the vague intention of throwing herself off one of the Thames bridges.

She was alone in London: and the whole town of marvels and mud, with its maze of streets and its mass of lights, was sunk in a hopeless night, rested at the bottom of a black abyss from which no unaided woman could hope to scramble out. (p.218)

Who does she blunder into but Comrade Ossipon. Ossipon is a sensualist and a womaniser. He’s had his eye on Mrs Verloc for some time and is delighted to find her in such a state that he needs to hold her up, steady her, and generally touch and reassure her.

But his thoughts of seduction are quickly overwhelmed by her panic fear, and the whole chapter becomes a a very black joke in miscommunication and misunderstanding. For Ossipon readily falls in with Winnie saying Verloc is dead, because he thinks the person who blew themselves up in Greenwich Park was Ossipon. So he completely misreads Winnie’s repeated wailing that ‘he’s dead, he’s dead’ and then is perplexed when she goes on to say things like ‘he made me do it, he was a devil’ and so on. What is the woman on about?

Ossipon is keen on anything which involves the possibility of seduction but is puzzled and worried when Winnie starts babbling about fleeing the country. but then reassured when she draws out of her dress the pigskin wallet with all the money Verloc had withdrawn from the bank.

He has a brainwave and remembers the Southampton to St Malo ferry which leaves at midnight. they can get a train from Waterloo. But she insists they go back to the shop first, to close the door, and then she insists that a reluctant Ossipon goes inside to turn off the gas lights which she, of course, is horrifiedly reluctant to do. And where he, of course, stumbles across Verloc’s body, dead on the sofa.

He has a panic attack but has barely moved before he realises the woman has come running in from the street and gripped his arms. A policeman is coming! They stand in a frozen embrace as the copper very leisurely strolls up, checks the door, peers through the shop window into the dark interior before finally moving on. It is a scene from a movie. And Winnie hisses in his ear, ‘If he finds me, kill me, Tom, kill me’ such is her panic fear of the gallows.

And now in the darkness she explains why she murdered Verloc, for taking away her boy and blowing him up, and a great lightbulb goes on in Ossipon’s head. So the blown up body in the park wasn’t Verloc, it was her simple brother. And Verloc was responsible. And so she killed him.

Now, in words which must have been scandalous for the time, she begs him to take her away, to escape England: she’ll be his slave, she’ll adore him, she’ll do anything for him, he won’t even have to marry her. She falls to the floor and grips his legs and, in his mortal terror of her, Ossipon fancies her a snake, an angel of death. They’re both completely hysterical. For a moment, there in the dark, it crosses Ossipon’s mind to strangle her and be free.

But the moment passes and instead they go out and hail a cab to take them to the station. Here Ossipon instructs her to buy a ticket and enter the train by herself, he being known to the police and accompanying her would trigger alarm bells.

Her hysteria and his panic are vividly conveyed in a way which made me tenser, more uptight than at many a movie thriller I’ve seen. They enter a compartment of the train and sit waiting for it to depart, her weeping copiously and blessing him as her ‘saviour’, him wondering what the devil he’s got himself into.

Finally, finally the train starts to move off and even as Winnie continues tearfully thanking him as her saviour and promising to serve him all her days, he takes a few strides, opens the carriage door and jumps out, flinging the door closed behind him.

Something is required artistically, to round off the mad series of events following Verloc’s murder and Conrad makes the maybe obvious, maybe stylish decision to let the train pull out and leave without a word, and gives us nothing of Winnie’s response, no words, no thoughts, nothing about her at all, leaving the reader to imagine her horror and despair.

Instead Conrad has a couple of pages describing how Ossipon walks walks walks all night long the length and breadth of central London, walking off the trauma and shock and horror and fear and confusion he has just experienced until finally, at dawn, he enters his cheap digs, collapses on the bed and falls asleep.

Chapter 13

Cut to a completely different scene. We really are never going to hear more of Winnie Verloc. Instead we are in the Professor’s bare garret where Ossipon has paid him a visit. The Professor is describing a visit of his own to Michaelis’s rural cottage and ridiculing the ‘book’ he is writing for its sentimental thick-headedness. Michaelis witters on about creating an ideal world in which the strong will tend to the weak. Hah! says the Professor.

‘The weak! The source of all evil on this earth!… I told him that I dreamt of a world like shambles, where the weak would be taken in hand for utter extermination.’

And they catch a bus to the Silenus, the bar where we first met them drinking and arguing about radical politics. But the Professor isn’t a radical, he’s a nihilist.

‘What’s the good of thinking of what will be!’ He raised his glass. ‘To the destruction of what is,’ he said calmly. (p.245)

But Ossipon isn’t listening. He has in his jacket pocket the press report of a mystery woman who went aboard a Channel ferry, was spotted by several ship staff wandering looking lost and ill. Who was questioned by staff who went to get help and when they got back she was gone, presumed jumped over the side. So that was the end of Winnie Verloc.

But it isn’t the end of the consequences. Because ever since he read it Ossipon has lost his natural joie de vivre and his easy success with women. he radiated health and vitality which seduced no end of women but now his words come haltingly, he embarrasses them, he has lost his seductive powers. He asks the professor for his help but the gnome-like Professor is no use, tells him he is a mediocrity in an age destroyed by mediocrity, bids farewell and leaves.

Ossipon stumbles out into the daylight a broken man. He’s not going to keep the date he has with a likely prospect (‘an elderly nursery governess putting her trust in his Apollo-like ambrosial head’), he has lost all his lust for life. he likes drinking now, drinking to forget, drinking to head towards a future of alcoholism and vagabond ruin. He is the moral casualty left behind by the squalid little Verloc affair.

But the last word is given to Conrad’s spooky description of the Professor, in suitably ominous, threatening tones. I imagine a black and white movie ending with huge end credits and melodramatic Hollywood music.

And the incorruptible Professor walked too, averting his eyes from the odious multitude of mankind. He had no future. He disdained it. He was a force. His thoughts caressed the images of ruin and destruction. He walked frail, insignificant, shabby, miserable—and terrible in the simplicity of his idea calling madness and despair to the regeneration of the world. Nobody looked at him. He passed on unsuspected and deadly, like a pest in the street full of men. (p.248)

Minor characters

One of the things which makes ‘The Secret Agent’ such a chewy and rewarding read is the depth and care Conrad gives to even minor characters. Everybody who comes onstage is given some thought and analysis:

The Italian waiter in the Italian restaurant where the Assistant Commissioner stops for a cheap dinner, who, when the latter pays, is divided between counting the silver coins and eyeing up the pretty young woman who’s just leaving. (p.125)

The cabman with his ‘fierce little eyes’, who takes Winnie’s mother to the almshouse, and even more so the cabby’s horse, are treated to an extended description (pages 130 to 142).

Stevie was staring at the horse, whose hind quarters appeared unduly elevated by the effect of emaciation. The little stiff tail seemed to have been fitted in for a heartless joke; and at the other end the thin, flat neck, like a plank covered with old horse-hide, drooped to the ground under the weight of an enormous bony head. The ears hung at different angles, negligently; and the macabre figure of that mute dweller on the earth steamed straight up from ribs and backbone in the muggy stillness of the air.

The secretary of the charity who bends the rules to grant Winnie’s mother her alms cottage is given a paragraph or more to fill out his character (p.134).

Mrs Neale who cleans for the Verloc’s is given several pages:

Victim of her marriage with a debauched joiner, she was oppressed by the needs of many infant children. Red-armed, and aproned in coarse sacking up to the arm-pits, she exhaled the anguish of the poor in a breath of soap-suds and rum, in the uproar of scrubbing, in the clatter of tin pails. (p.150)

Revolutionary arguments

Yundt, Michaelis, Ossipon and the Professor are made to represent different flavours or strands of revolutionary thought and Conrad presents extensive conversations in which they articulate and debate their points of view.

Michaelis is the most articulate and he expresses 100% pure Marxism:

‘The future is as certain as the past – slavery, feudalism, individualism, collectivism.’ He saw Capitalism doomed in its cradle, born with the poison of the principle of competition in its system. The great capitalists devouring the little capitalists, concentrating the power and the tools of production in great masses, perfecting industrial processes, and in the madness of self-aggrandisement only preparing, organising, enriching, making ready the lawful inheritance of the suffering proletariat.

By contrast, the Professor is placed in a dialogue with Comrade Ossipon in which he is given very powerful critique of the professional revolutionaries for their smug complacency, and the Professor’s insistence on destruction for its own sake. The Professor accuses Ossipon and his ilk of being mirror images of the society they claim to want to overthrow, which shapes and limits them. They are its slaves.

‘You revolutionists… are the slaves of the social convention, which is afraid of you; slaves of it as much as the very police that stands up in the defence of that convention. Clearly you are, since you want to revolutionise it. It governs your thought, of course, and your action too, and thus neither your thought nor your action can ever be conclusive… You are not a bit better than the forces arrayed against you – than the police, for instance… The terrorist and the policeman both come from the same basket. Revolution, legality – counter moves in the same game; forms of idleness at bottom identical…’ (p.64)

By contrast with this comfortable arrangement, the Professor wants to blow up society, erase and destroy it.

The influence of Dickens

I read a lot of Conrad as a student and when I came to ‘The Secret Agent’ I was struck by the flavour of Charles Dickens in a lot of the descriptions. Not just of the fog and damp of London which is, after all, in Sherlock Holmes and umpteen other late Victorian texts, but something more animated and alive.

He advanced at once into an immensity of greasy slime and damp plaster interspersed with lamps, and enveloped, oppressed, penetrated, choked, and suffocated by the blackness of a wet London night, which is composed of soot and drops of water. (p.126)

What’s more specifically Dickensian is giving inanimate objects such as houses, or parts of people’s anatomy or physiology, a humorous life of their own.

Sir Ethelred opened a wide mouth, like a cavern, into which [his] hooked nose seemed anxious to peer; there came from it a subdued rolling sound, as from a distant organ with the scornful indignation stop. (p.117)

All was so still without and within that the lonely ticking of the clock on the landing stole into the room as if for the sake of company.

Striking a match on the box she held in her hand, she turned on and lighted, above the parlour table, one of the two gas-burners, which, being defective, first whistled as if astonished, and then went on purring comfortably like a cat.

Mr Verloc obeyed woodenly, stony-eyed, and like an automaton whose face had been painted red. (p.162)

A thick police constable, looking a stranger to every emotion, as if he too were part of inorganic nature, surging apparently out of a lamp-post, took not the slightest notice of Mr Verloc.

Also, for anyone who’s read ‘Bleak House’, Conrad’s Chief Inspector Heat brings echoes of Dickens’s Inspector Bucket.

And names, Dickens was a genius at naming his characters which is why so many remain part of popular culture (Oliver Twist, Scrooge). Verloc, Ossipon and so on are not particularly great names, but when I came across the assistant to the Secretary of State and found his name was Toodles this rang a big bell. Toodles is the name of the warm and generous family in ‘Dombey and Son’.

Conrad’s cosmic imagery

As I’ve pointed out in all my Conrad reviews, all his stories contain a sprinkling of similes or descriptions which lift off from the present banal situation and suddenly see everything from a cosmic perspective, suddenly drawing comparisons with the entire earth, the human race, the universe, all space and time and so on.

Down below in the quiet, narrow street measured footsteps approached the house, then died away unhurried and firm, as if the passer-by had started to pace out all eternity, from gas-lamp to gas-lamp in a night without end… (p.55)

His wisdom was of an official kind, or else he might have reflected upon a matter not of theory but of experience that in the close-woven stuff of relations between conspirator and police there occur unexpected solutions of continuity, sudden holes in space and time. (p.76)

All the inhabitants of the immense town, the population of the whole country, and even the teeming millions struggling upon the planet, were with him. (p.85)

The Assistant Commissioner remembered very well the conversation between these two. He had listened in silence. It was something as exciting in a way, and even touching in its foredoomed futility, as the efforts at moral intercourse between the inhabitants of remote planets. (p.94)

She kept still as the population of half the globe would keep still in astonishment and despair, were the sun suddenly put out in the summer sky by the perfidy of a trusted providence. (p.198)

Vivid images

Conrad has a knack of knocking out, every now and then, startlingly vivid and unexpected images.

The Assistant Commissioner’s delivery was leisurely, as it were cautious. His thought seemed to rest poised on a word before passing to another, as though words had been the stepping-stones for his intellect picking its way across the waters of error. (p.86)

He led a cortege of dismal thoughts along dark streets, through lighted streets, in and out of two flash bars, as if in a half-hearted attempt to make a night of it, and finally back again to his menaced home, where he sat down fatigued behind the counter, and they crowded urgently round him, like a pack of hungry black hounds.

Mr Verloc went on divesting himself of his clothing with the unnoticing inward concentration of a man undressing in the solitude of a vast and hopeless desert.

Something wild and doubtful in his expression made it appear uncertain whether he meant to strangle or to embrace his wife.

Sometimes clunky

Conrad handles the English language with the fearlessness of an outsider. Very often this results in sentences and whole paragraphs of vivid power, long, loquacious, studded with unusual words or phrasing. But now and then the same preparedness to experiment and find new expression drives him over the edge into a kind of rule-breaking clunkiness – although this, like everything else about Conrad, is still interesting and entertaining.

He was strong in his integrity of a good detective, but he saw now that an impenetrably attentive reserve towards this incident would have served his reputation better. (p.77)

All the time his trained faculties of an excellent investigator, who scorns no chance of information, followed the self-satisfied, disjointed loquacity of the constable. (p.79)

That singed piece of cloth was incredibly valuable, and he could not defend himself from astonishment at the casual manner it had come into his possession. (p.80)

Somehow it’s as if the effort to make his prose closer to a more functional detective style, at the same time reveals its occasional oddity and boniness. It also brings out the French in him.

French word order

Conrad was Polish and like lots of boys of his class was taught French as his primary foreign language. He lived for a while in Paris and was fluent in the language long before he began picking up English and, I would argue, it shows. I think this French tinge to his thinking comes out mostly in placing adjectives and adverbs and adverbial phrases after rather than before the nouns or verbs they refer to.

He turned no longer his back to the room.

The stranger gave her again a silent smile.

‘I’ve heard of him,’ whispered uneasily Mr Verloc.

Mrs Verloc adjusted nicely in its place a small cardboard box… (p.167)

‘He’s been frightening me,’ declared suddenly the lady who sat by the side of Mr Vladimir…

All of these are against traditional English word order. As Hugh Epstein writes, in the notes to the Wordsworth Classics edition, ‘Conrad’s translations from French occasionally interfere with idiomatic English’ to which I would add ‘occasionally’? Conrad’s often Frenchified word order is one of the reasons his prose style is often described as ‘exotic’.

Animal imagery

The use of animal imagery to dehumanise characters, by implication to compare all the characters to dumb beasts, is not particularly Dickensian. In fact Conrad did it earlier in ‘Amy Foster where he compares the emigrant husband, and his baby son, to birds caught in a snare. It’s a kind of anti-humanistic tactic but one he uses extensively in ‘The Secret Agent’.

Mr Verloc extended as much recognition to Stevie as a man not particularly fond of animals may give to his wife’s beloved cat.

Mr Verloc called aloud to the boy, in the spirit, no doubt, in which a man invites the attendance of the household dog

Stevie prowled round the table like an excited animal in a cage.

Mr Verloc’s immobility by the side of the arm-chair resembled a state of collapsed coma — a sort of passive insensibility interrupted by slight convulsive starts, such as may be observed in the domestic dog having a nightmare on the hearthrug.

‘When he heard me scraping the ground with it he leaned his forehead against a tree, and was as sick as a dog.’

Chief Inspector Heat, though what is called a man, was not a smiling animal.

The perfect anarchist was not recognised as a fellow-creature by Chief Inspector Heat. He was impossible — a mad dog to be left alone.

On all fours amongst the puddles, wet and begrimed, like a sort of amphibious and domestic animal living in ash-bins and dirty water, [Mrs Neale] uttered the usual exordium.

Stevie moped in the striking fashion of an unhappy domestic animal.

Mr Verloc felt this difficulty acutely. He turned around the table in the parlour with his usual air of a large animal in a cage.

‘The Embassy,’ Mr Verloc began again, after a preliminary grimace which bared his teeth wolfishly. (p.198)

He paused, and a snarl lifting his moustaches above a gleam of white teeth gave him the expression of a reflective beast, not very dangerous — a slow beast with a sleek head, gloomier than a seal. (p.208)

He felt her now clinging round his legs, and his terror reached its culminating point, became a sort of intoxication, entertained delusions, acquired the characteristics of delirium tremens. He positively saw snakes now. He saw the woman twined round him like a snake, not to be shaken off. (p.234)

The Russian character

It seems to be generally agreed that the unnamed foreign power paying Verloc is Russia – Vladimir is the founding ruler of the Russian Orthodox Church and Verloc visits an embassy in ‘Chesham Square’, the Russian Embassy was in Chesham Place – so it is generally assumed that Vladimir, the suave commissioner of this terrorist attack, is Russian. No change there, then.

As a Pole, whose nation had for centuries oppressed by the Russians, Conrad gives an inevitably negative account of the Russian character, with its centuries-old tradition of illiberal, autocratic, repressiiveness

Descended from generations victimised by the instruments of an arbitrary power, he was racially, nationally, and individually afraid of the police. It was an inherited weakness, altogether independent of his judgment, of his reason, of his experience. He was born to it. (p.183)

Thoughts

I disagree with the critics quoted on the paperback blurb, in the introduction and the Wikipedia article, who claim this is a great political novel or even, ludicrously, the greatest novel about terrorism ever written. It’s obviously nothing of the sort. The little cohort of revolutionists described here are more like cartoon comedy figures than the terrorist groups of the world I grew up in – the PLO, the IRA, the Baader-Meinhof group, more recently al-Qaeda and all its franchises and affiliates.

Slothful Verloc and his shop of seedy photos and his moany mother-in-law are more the stuff of a comic novel (if Conrad could do genuine comedy), as is the long peculiar passage about taking the mother by cab to Peckham.

The central event of sending an idiot boy to plant a bomb which he trips over and detonates by accident has no meaning or significance, is simply sad and squalid, Viewed from a different angle it has a Keystone Cops slapstick element about it.

Even the ‘arguments’ between the revolutionists are moderately interesting but feel like they’ve been tacked on as required by the nominal subject matter, and mostly amount to ad hominem abuse of each other. There’s none of the intellectual clarity and incisiveness you get from, for example, something like Jean-Paul Sartre’s play Dirty Hands.

The machinations of the foreign embassy manipulator Mr Vladimir have the quaint home-made feeling of a character from The Prisoner of Zenda or a Sherlock Holmes story.

The entire thing lacks the sense of real threat you only really begin to get in fiction following the First World War, which transformed the world into a much more dangerous and threatening place. None of these people is a threat, they’re harmless jokes.

In any case, the entire earlier parts of the book are entirely overshadowed by the final two chapters which are harrowing in the extreme; everything else – Vladimir’s threats, Verloc’s pathetic career, Ossipon and Michaelis and Yundt’s pointless bickering – are just foreplay for the big event, which is the searingly tragic impact on Winnie of finding out about Stevie’s death.

That chapter is unstoppable, unput-downable, her terrible grief gripped me by the throat, and then rolled on into the long sequence of events with Ossipon which carry you like a rollercoaster to the bitter end of the text.

It’s odd that liberal critics – and Conrad himself in his dull prefaces – go on about ‘morality’ and ‘moral choices’ and so on, as if this is what Conrad’s fiction is about, when what so many of his stories actually convey, with nerve-flaying power, is the horror and futility of existence. Everybody quotes Kurtz’s final phrase in ‘Heart of Darkness’, ‘The horror, the horror’, mainly because it’s so short and quotable, but the final two chapters of ‘The Secret Agent’ should be up there alongside ‘Heart of Darkness’ as one of the most nerve-shredding, intense and psychologically horrifying passages in literature.


Credit

The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad was first published in Blackwood’s Magazine in 1902. Page references are to the 1975 Penguin Modern Classics paperback edition.

Related links

Conrad reviews

Three Sisters by Anton Chekhov (1901)

‘When you read a novel this kind of thing seems so trite and obvious…’
(The youngest of the three sister, Masha Prozorov, accurately commenting on this play)

‘Nothing ever works out as you want it.’
(Olga summing up the plays miserable defeatism)

Characters

The play represents snapshots, at roughly one year intervals, of the three sisters, their brother, their partners and friends, as their lives slowly unfurl in ways they never expected…

The Prozorov family

Introducing the three Prozorov sisters. Their parents are dead and they live in a house in a provincial town with their brother, Andrew. They were born and brought up in Moscow but moved to this (unnamed) provincial town (population about 100,000, p.182) eleven years ago when their father, Colonel Prozorov, ‘got his brigade’. The father who moved them there died one year ago.

Andrew is clever and aims to become an academic but also laments his laziness. Their father drove all the children hard (‘inflicted education on us’), forcing them to learn modern languages but, since his death, the pedal’s been taken off the gas. Apart from anything else, Andrew’s put on a lot of weight. In the first act Andrew declares his love for a local young lady, Natalia (Natasha). Natasha is 28, gauche and awkward: the sisters mock her for her clumsy dress sense (‘downright pathetic’, p.180).

Olga is the oldest Prozorov sister and assumes the role of matriarchal head of the family although she’s only 28. She’s a spinster and so, inevitably, wishes she had married. Olga is, also inevitably, a teacher at the high school, where she frequently fills in for the headmistress whenever he’s absent.

Maria (Masha) is the middle sister, 23 at the beginning of the play. She married her husband, the dull pedantic Latin teacher at the local high school, Kulygin, when she was 18 and just out of school. After five years of marriage she has, inevitably, grown tired of her husband. (Chekhov wrote this part for his wife, the Moscow Art Theatre actress Olga Knipper.)

Irina is the youngest sister and the play opens with celebrations of her ‘name day’ (she is turning 20) which is the pretext for half a dozen other characters to visit the household, mainly a bunch of soldiers from the local barracks, being:

The soldiers

Aleksandr Vershinin (42) – Lieutenant colonel who’s just been appointed head of the artillery battery. He knew the girls’ father in Moscow and reminds them that when they were little they called him the ‘Lovesick Major’. He is married to his second wife who’s mentally unstable and regularly talks about killing herself.

Baron Nikolaj Tuzenbach (29) – A lieutenant in the army and not handsome, Tuzenbach often tries to impress the youngest sister, Irina, whom he has loved for five years.

Captain Vasily Solyony – irritating man who continually makes bad jokes, keeps quoting refrains from songs, teases the other soldiers, sprinkles scent on his chest and hands.

Dr Ivan Chebutykin – 59-year-old army doctor, Chebutykin starts off as a fun, eccentric old man who enjoys his position as family friend. He is all courtesy and hand kissing, boasts of his own idleness, always has a newspaper stuffed in his pocket.

Minor characters

Ferapont – Doorkeeper at the local council offices, Ferapont is comedy deaf (‘eh?….what?…what d’ye say?’). Also given to blurting out random facts, usually about Moscow.

Anfisa – An elderly family retainer and former nurse, Anfisa is 81 years old and has worked forever for the Prozorov family. Natasha begins to despise her for her feebleness and threatens to throw her out but Olga rescues her, taking her to live at Olga’s teacher’s flat.

Unseen characters

The play has several important characters who are talked about frequently but never seen onstage. These include Protopopov, head of the local council and Natasha’s lover; Vershinin’s suicidal wife and two daughters; Kulygin’s beloved superior the headmaster of the high school, and Natasha’s children (Bobik and Sofia).

Act 1

It’s 5 May, one year since their father died and, coincidentally, Irina’s name-day. The three sisters are sitting together and quickly give their backstories: Olga is marking her pupils workbooks and complains about being exhausted by long hours teaching at the school, while Irina has woken up in a wonderful mood on this lovely sunny day!

Family friends – the soldiers Lieutenant Tuzenbach and Captain Solyony, along with old Dr Chebutykin – walk in very casually. Irina, in her naive gushing way, praises the joy of honest work; Tuzenbach quickly establishes his hobby horse, which is that a great avalanche is coming which will sweep away all their rottenness and boredom (and, indeed, there was to be a revolution 4 years after the play was produced).

Dr Chebutykin boasts about how idle he is, never read a book since he left university, only ever reads the newspapers and pulls one out of his pocket.

Masha announces she’s going home to her boring husband, says she is so depressed, kisses Irina through her tears of unhappiness. This triggers Olga who starts crying.

Dr Chebutykin re-enters with a soldier carrying a silver samovar which he presents to Irina as a birthday present. This is, apparently, a crass gift so Irina, Olga and the soldiers all mock it. Chebutykin responds with self pity: ‘I’m an old man, a lonely, insignificant old man.’

Enter Vershinin, the new battery commander. When he mentions he’s from Moscow, the homesick sisters excitedly crown round, as he remembers, all those years ago, coming to visit their father, and remembers the three little sisters, and they enthusiastically revive their memories, turns out they even lived on the same road, Old Basmanny Road, and Olga and Masha start crying (as usual).

Someone mentions their dead mother and Masha laments that she’s already starting to forget what she looked like which prompts Vershinin to a bit of cheap philosophising, pointing out that everything they think important will pass away and be forgotten. Tuzenbach counters that maybe later generations will look back and find their lives admirable, after all there are no longer torture and executions etc (they will be revived by the Bolsheviks in just 16 or so years’ time).

Enter Andrew who the sisters praise for his ability on the violin, and at making picture frames, but then tease for being in love. Every time he opens his mouth Vershinin talks philosophically about the future:

VERSHININ: In two or three hundred years life upon this earth will be beautiful beyond our dreams…’ (p.182)

Tuzenbakh picks up on this and says they all need to work for this better future. (In his history of Russia Orlando Figes comments on a recurring feature of Russian culture being its belief in utopias here on earth, whether the peasants dreaming of owning their own land or intellectuals dreaming of a free society. That’s why even pre-revolutionary literature sounds the same as communist exhortations to build a better future, because it’s a thread that runs through Russian culture no matter what the political system. This thread occurs in several Chekhov plays.)

Enter Kulygin, the senior assistant master at the local school who Masha married when she was young and impressionable. he establishes his crushingly boring character by presenting Irina with a history of the school over the last 50 years which he has written. It includes a list of every pupil who’s passed through it in the previous 50 years! Irina points out that he already gave her this as a present, at Easter. Unfazed, Kulygin turns to offer it to Vershinin.

Kulygin delivers a pedantic schoolteacher lecture about how summer is coming, they’ll soon have to take up the carpets and take down the curtains. He puts his arm round Masha and tells everyone his wife loves him, but Masha irritatedly frees herself and moves away. When he reminds her they’re due to attend a little party at the headmaster’s later in the day Masha irritatedly says she’s not going.

Everyone goes through to the back room for lunch, leaving Irina and Tuzenbakh alone so that he instantly declares his love for Irina. She is so young and fresh, he says he feels a tremendous zeal for life, to work and struggle and this is mixed up with his love for her.

But Irina bursts into tears. A little incomprehensibly she says that life is like weeds strangling the three sisters. What’s wrong is they ‘don’t know the meaning of work’. An odd thing to say seeing as how Olga is exhausted by her work.

Enter Natasha wearing a bright green sash, to the horror of all the other female characters.

The big birthday lunch starts with the characters swapping chit-chat. Notable that all this irritates Andrew whose main wish is to be left alone.

Enter the minor characters second lieutenants Vladimir Rodé, who is given the habit of rolling his r’s, and Alexei Fedotik, who is given the hobby of photography i.e. he’s always snapping whatever situation he finds himself in.

Someone notices there are 13 at the table, they joke that this means someone at the table is in love. When Dr Chebutykin jokingly mentions Natasha’s name she gets up and runs out the room, followed by Andrew. He tells her how much he loves her and how happy she makes with the characteristically bluntness, with the straightforward statement which is so typical of Chekhov:

ANDREW: I feel so wonderful, my heart is so full of love and joy. (p.189)

He kisses her and tells her he wants to marry her.

Act 2

It’s a year later. Andrew and Natasha have gotten married and had a baby, Bobik, which Natasha endlessly fusses over. Since the scene is the same as Act 1, clearly Andrew and Natasha are living in the Prozorov family home. As the act opens it’s 8 o’clock at night. We find out in quick succession that Irina has now got a job, working at the post office, that Natasha is harsh on the servants, that it’s the carnival and some revellers have been invited to the house which Natasha inevitably disapproves off since it might upset precious Bobik.

Natasha goes on to say that Bobok ought to have Irina’s room and Irina move in to share with Olga. In other words, Natasha is trying to take over running the Prozorov household and Andrew is too weak/scared of upsetting her, to intervene. Natasha leaves, the old servant Ferapont enters. He’s brought some papers from the council which triggers Andrew to give us his backstory, in that characteristically Chekhov way: this is that all his brave fantasies about becoming a university professor in Moscow, ‘a distinguished scholar, the pride of Russia!’ have been crushed and he’s ended up becoming secretary to the county council and his highest ambition is to be allowed onto the council itself.

He ponders the way that, if he were in Moscow he could drop into a restaurant for dinner and not know anybody there but somehow still feel part of the swing of things, whereas here in this provincial town, if he goes to a restaurant he knows everyone and everyone knows him but he still feels out of it.

He can tell old Ferapont all this because Ferapont is deaf and doesn’t actually hear him, instead telling some inconsequential stories told by a recent contractor from Moscow to the council.

Andrew stretches and exits to be replaced by Masha and Lieutenant-Colonel Vershinin. They are a bit flushed from a night out. She repeats the story that she married her husband when young and still scared of him. They both lament how boring this provincial town is, how everyone here is fed up with their wife, with their house, with their estate and with their horses. Moan moan moan.

Then Vershinin moans about his unstable wife, they had an argument this morning, and ends up telling Masha he has no-one but her, ‘You’re a wonderful marvellous woman, I love you love you love you’.

While Vershinin is prattling on Irina and Baron Tuzenbakh enter at another door. He is telling Irina how much he loves her, how he loves to walk her home from work every evening, how he’ll do it for the next ten or twenty years if she’ll let him. But Irina ignores him because she is tired. We know this because, with Chekhovian lack of subtlety she says it six times.

The two couples spot each other and start a general conversation. Irina complains that working at the post office is not at all the intellectual adventure she romantically envisioned but just tiring drudgery (welcome to the world, baby). Irina and Masha share the news that Andrew has started going to some gambling club with the doctor and is losing heavily.

The doctor enters, combs his beard, sits and takes out a newspaper and the other characters laugh at this stereotypical behaviour.

At a loose end Vershinin and Tuzenbakh start off on their familiar hobby horse, the world of the future which will bring in a new and happy life. As per my citing of Orlando Figes’ point about the  ubiquity of utopian thinking in Russian culture:

VERSHININ: Two or three hundred years, or a thousand years if you like – it doesn’t really matter how long – will bring in a new and happy life. We’ll have no part in it of course, but it is what we’re now living for, working for, yes suffering for. We’re creating it and that’s what gives our life its meaning and its happiness too… (p.197)

The good life is always round the corner. Of course this is the deep Russian mentality which the communists exploited throughout the Soviet era. Just one more five-year plan, comrade! All these sacrifices we’re making are for the future, it is people of the future who will benefit from our misery, our sacrifices, our starving and gulags and imprisonment. So:

VERSHININ: Our business is to work and go on working and our distance descendants will have the happiness that’s going…I won’t have it but my children’s children may. (p.197)

Anyway, Tuzenbakh completely disagrees. Forget all this ‘happiness in the far future’ stuff. our job is to be happy today! What if he’s happy right now! Masha enters with a third point of view which is life is meaningless without a point or purpose.

MASHA: What’s the point of it all?…Man must have a faith or be trying to find one otherwise his life just doesn’t make any sense…Either you know what you’re living for or else the whole thing’s a waste of time and means less than nothing. (p.198)

This is, maybe, the existentialist frame of mind which dominated so much continental thought and literature in the twentieth century but is obviously wrong. It is nostalgic for ‘faith’, it believes there’s a God-shaped hole in our hearts etc etc. But if there is no God and never was one and all faiths are psychological fantasies, then better to live in truth, face and overcome and be happy with who we are and the world we live in and the conditions on which we live in it (frailty, contingency, illness, accident) and so make the best of every day. Freud’s view in his little essay on transitoriness.

After reaching no conclusion, as discussions like this never can because there is no conclusion to an unnecessary question, to a question framed using invalid concepts (God, faith, meaning) the conversation collapses into general banter with the doctor inconsequentially pointing out facts in his newspaper, the junior officer Fedotik has brought Irina a box of crayons. He shows her a different type of patience (with cards). Servants bring in a samovar to prepare tea… It’s more like a youth club than a family home, the way in each scene this main room fills up with ten or more characters.

The room disintegrates into people saying things to themselves, continuing their hobby horse lines of thought, dialogue criss-crossing over others… Vershinin  has another bit of gloomy philosophising:

VERSHININ: We have no happiness. There’s no such thing. It’s only something we long for. (p.200)

But the psychological basis of this view is revealed seconds later when he is handed a note which has been sent from his daughter to say his wife has taken poison again so he has to go in a rush, just time to tell Masha what a splendid marvellous woman she is…Leaving Masha in a filthy mood because she is in love with a man who is tied to a maniac, which explains why she (Masha) now wanders round the room losing her temper with everyone, telling off the servant Anfisa and scrambling the cards Irina was playing patience with.

Tuzenbakh carries a decanter of brandy over to Solyony and says they must make it up but Solyony says there’s no ‘it’ to make up before admitting that he’s alright when with one other person but in larger company feels tense and comes out with boorish and rude comments.

Tuzenbakh announces to several people that he’s resigning his commission because he wants to work, to do good honest work, he bets peasants sleep like logs after a good day’s labour. What an idiot. The Tolstoy view that authenticity is down among the mindless labouring peasants.

Solyony and the doctor get into a pointless argument about escalopes and shallots.

Tuzenbakh, Andrew and Solyony get into a pointless argument about how many universities Moscow has.

Tuzenbakh sits at the piano and starts to play a waltz, Masha dances by herself singing made-up words.

God these people really need to get lives.

As if to confirm that view Natasha enters and tells them they’ve all got to go because her baby Bobik is ill. Also it is announced that the promised carnival revellers will not now be coming to the house – for the sake of the baby, of course. All the other characters say goodbye and make various exits, all grumbling about Natasha, some saying it’s her that’s ill, mentally ill.

Leaving just Andrew and Dr Chebutykin who have obviously made a plan to go to a gambling club again tonight. Chebutykin admits that he was always in love with Andrew’s mother. Andrew takes this with surprising indifference because what he really wants to say is that marriage is rubbish (it’s clear that after just one year he’s had enough of small-minded but bossy Natasha). Yes but loneliness is a terrible thing, Chebutykin replies.

They exit whereupon there’s knocking at the hall door. It’s the carnival revellers who were promised a reception here. Irina tells the maid Anfisa to tell them there’s nobody home. At that moment Solyony enters, is surprised the carnival revellers are being turned away but, finding Irina by herself, takes the opportunity to tell her how much he loves her, ‘My happiness! My joy!’ (p.205) Unsurprisingly Irina very coldly tells him to shut up and go away, at which Solyony says he shall have no rival.

SOLYONY: By God I mean it, if there’s anybody else I’ll kill him! (p.205)

Enter Natasha with candle checking all the doors are shut. She imagines her husband is in his room reading so doesn’t look in, then encounters Irina and Solyony.

Natasha takes this opportunity to suggest to irina that she vacates her room and moves in with Olga to make way for precious Bobik. This is such an outrageous suggestion that Irina doesn’t at first understand her and then the doorbell goes. The maid comes to tell Natasha that it’s the leader of the council, Protopopov. Natasha switches from trying to ease Irina out of her room to giggling girlishly that Protopopov has come to take her for a spin in his sleigh and skips out. It’s pretty obvious that Natasha is infatuated with / having an affair with Protopopov.

Enter the oldest sister, tired Olga, and the boring schoolmaster Kulygin, obviously arriving from work, and they quickly tell us it’s because they’ve been attending a school meeting. When they quiz Irina, Irina says she’s too tired to talk. Olga announces that she feels ill with fatigue. Vershinin comes in, says his wife has stabilised after her latest suicide attempt and invites Kulygin to go somewhere with him but Kulygin completes the trio of characters saying he’s too tired.

Well, since there’s no party (the carnival people being turned away) both Vershinin and Kulygin say they’ll be off then, and take their leave of the two sisters (Olga and Irina).

Olga heads to bed leaving Irina alone onstage just long enough for Natashe to re-emerge with her outdoor clothes on and obviously off for a spin, a snog and maybe something more with Protopopov.

When she’s gone there’s only Irina onstage, with the weight of all these issues on her shoulders:

  • the wife of her brother, Andrew, is being unfaithful to him
  • in despair Andrew has taken to staying out late and gambling away the family patrimony
  • her older sister (Olga) is a sad old spinster
  • her second sister (Masha) is bored of her dull husband and wants to have an affair with Vershinin but Vershinin is tied to his suicidal wife and two daughters
  • she, Irina, is loved by dashing (if not handsome) Tuzenbakh but is the subject of unwanted attentions from the vile Solyony

It’s no wonder, then, that she ends the act with the play’s well-known refrain:

IRINA: [alone on stage, with intense longing]: Moscow, Moscow, Moscow!

Act 3

About a year later in Olga and Irina’s room – a clear sign that Natasha is taking over the household, as she asked them to share a room so that Bobik could have a separate room.

But we’re thrown straight into a high stress situation. it’s 3 in the morning, there’s a fire raging in the town, red from the fire can bee seen through the windows along with the sound of fire engines in the road outside.

People are running in and out in panic. Old Anfisa wants clothes for people who’ve taken refuge with them which turns out to be a lot of people: ‘the Kolotilin girls’ as well as the entire Vershinin household, Baton Tuzenbakh, the doctor, Fedotik. Obviously Olga and the nanny, Anfisa, both complain of being tired out.

Natasha enters and is only concerned that a) her beloved children are sleeping safely and b) tell-tale sign of self-absorbed narcissistic women everywhere, checks herself in the mirror and worries that she’s put on a bit of weight. In the middle of a huge fire and crisis when people are dying.

With similar selfishness she spots the 80-year-old servant Anfida sitting down and says How dare she sit in here presence? and orders her out. This, Natasha’s cruelty and the harsh words, make Olga cry which makes Natasha soften to her and kiss her. But they are mutually incomprehensible. Natasha thinks Anfisa is too old to work and so should be sent back to her village; Olga says she has served the family loyally for 30 years and so should be allowed to stay at which Natasha loses her temper and tells Olga that she runs the household.

Kulygin comes in with more news of the fire and to announce that he is, of course, tired out. These characters all need to take more exercise and multivitamin pills!

Enter the doctor who’s got very drunk. He talks to himself morosely, lamenting that he’s forgotten everything he ever knew about medicine and the other day, Wednesday, killed a woman. He hates himself, says he’s barely even human.

Just as in the previous acts the other characters drift in, Irina, Tuzenbakh, Vershinin. Tuezanbakh is in civilian dress and praises the soldiers for saving the day and the town. He says people are suggesting a concert to raise money for people who’ve lost their homes and says Masha must play at it.

Out of nowhere the doctor drops a valuable clock he’d been looking at and it smashes to pieces. Irina says it belonged to their mother but drunk Chebutykin rambles on saying what if he didn’t drop it what if they just think he did, what if he doesn’t exist, what if none of them exist. then changing tack he blurts out that Natasha is having an affair with Protopopov and they all pretend not to notice, before exiting.

There’s a pregnant pause which Vershinin breaks by leaping in to describe his actions earlier that night namely grabbing his children out of their house and the flames came closer. In his fanciful way, he wonders how much more his children will have to witness in their lives. (Well, if they’re 5 in 1901 they’ll witness Russia being trounced in the war with Japan, the 1905 revolution, the outbreak of war in 1915, the two revolutions in 1917, the Bolshevik coup and then the civil war lasting till 1922 or 3, millions dead from war, civil war and famine, then Bolshevik dictatorship leading to the collectivisation famines in the early 30s, the rise of the gulags and Stalin’s terror state, then the German invasion of 1941. Quite a lot, then.)

Continuing his theme he says that ‘in two or three hundred years’ people will lead wonderful lives…

Fedotik comes in to tell them his house has burned to the ground and he’s lost all his possessions, guitar, camera, everything.

Solyony enters but Irina tells him he can’t come in. He sprinkles himself with scent and Verishinin takes him into the dining room.

Tuzenbakh tells everyone how tired he feels before going on to kiss Irina’s hand and wishing she would come away with him. He reminds he how happy and optimistic she was on her name day i.e. the first act, but how somehow all the energy and optimism has been crushed. Rashly, he tells her that he would give his life for her.

Masha, exhausted of course, tells him to shut up and go away. This triggers her husband, Kulygin to tell her how much he loves her and has lovey every day of their seven years of marriage, but as schematically as in a masque or allegory she replies:

KULYGIN: I’m happy, happy, oh so happy.
MASHA: I’m bored, bored, oh so bored. (p.216)

Kulygin exists, leaving the Three Sisters alone.

Masha tells her sisters that Andrew has mortgaged the house and given the cash to his horrible wife but all four of them own the house so it’s unfair. Irina laments that Andrew’s gone to seed, lost all his ambition, once he wanted to be a professor but now he’s delighted just to get a place on the council. And his wife is having an affair with the head of the council, Protopopov, the whole town is laughing at him behind his back but he’s the only one who doesn’t know. It’s all too much for her and Irina bursts into tears.

IRINA: What’s become of everything, where’s it all gone? Where is it?… Life is slipping away, it will never, never come back again and we shall never get to Moscow… (p.217)

Once she naively looked forward to ‘work’ but after working at the post office she now works for the town council and hates it. She’s 23 and she’s shrivelled up, she’s thin and old. She’s sinking into a bottomless pit of despair. Why hasn’t she killed herself?

Olga, the spinster, advises Irina to marry, marry Baron Tuzebakh, he’s not very good looking but he’s a good man. Admittedly they were all upset when he resigned his commission from the army and turned up wearing civilian clothes – they just brought out how ugly he is.

Irina replies that she’s been waiting till they move back to Moscow, convinced she’ll meet her true love there. But now she’s coming to realise that was all a fantasy.

Masha takes the opportunity to confess that she’s fallen head over heels in love with Vershinin but Olga refuses to listen. Masha laments that life is not like a novel. In real life you discover that nobody knows anything and you have to find your own way through.

Enter Andrew in a bad mood and telling off Ferapont who’s only brought a message from the firemen asking if they can lay a hose through their garden to the river. Andrew realises it’s just the Three Sisters and suggests they have it out, this is an opportunity for them to tell him what their complaint is against him.

Masha goes out and Olga and Irina say they’re both too tired but Andrew insists on continuing. He delivers a massive monologue clearly fighting against his own bad conscience. Firstly, he insists his wife Natasha is a fine honourable woman and he loves her and he doesn’t know what they’ve got against her and demands they give her the respect she’s owed. Secondly, he thinks they somehow disapprove of the way he never became the university professor he wanted to be but he’s on the town council now and very proud of being a councillor and it’s an important job. Thirdly, he admits he’s mortgaged the house and used the money released to pay off his gambling debts which had reached 35,000 roubles but…but… the three sisters had annuities awarded them while he had no income, so…so…

Obviously he’s looking for their approval and forgiveness but neither Olga nor Irina say anything so he walks out.

The last piece of dialogue is Irina telling Olga that ‘their’ regiment is due to leave town. Oh what will they do without their soldiers, the only friends they have? As to Tuzenbakh, yes, alright, she’ll marry him.

IRINA: He’s a very good man and I will marry him, I will, I will, only do let’s go to Moscow. We must go, please! There’s nowhere in the world like Moscow. Let’s go, Olga, do let’s go!

Act 4

Act 4 is set in the garden of the Prozorovs’ house with the verandah just on the right. The regiment is leaving and our guys are saying their farewells. Tuzenbakh, Irina, Kugylin are saying farewell to Rodé and Fedotik who keeps telling everyone to stand still so he can photograph them. And then with a few more farewells, they part and walk away.

Dr Chebutykin announces he’ll be going with them but only for a year or so at which point he’ll retire and come back here to live off his pension.

Now the soldiers have gone Irina asks what was this fracas in town the night before involving Tuzenbakh. Tuzenback refuses to discuss it and walks off across the lawn and into the house so Kulygin tells Irina that objectionable Solyony encountered Tukenbakh on the boulevard, started picking on him until the Baron insulted him.

Irina shudders at the thought. She announces that she’s marrying Tuzenbakh tomorrow and then they’re moving to ‘the brick works’ [that Tuzenback is going to manage?] while she starts work as a teacher at the school and, she hopes, a New Life will begin. Although we, the audience, know that of course it won’t…

Irina has finally resigned herself to never going to Moscow so she’s going to stay here and make the best of it. But she does find it hard in the big house now that Olga’s been made headmistress of the high school and lives on the premises. But when she finally made up her mind to say Yes to Tuzenbakh she felt a revival of that old urge to work, work, work and now she’s almost looking forward to the future.

Masha appears to share with Dr Chebutykin how she feels that all their hopes have come to nothing. She was in love with Verishin but he’s leaving today and she’ll be back to being lumbered with boring pedantic Kulygin.

Andrew has been seen pushing a pram (with another baby in it?) presumably a symbol of his fall from the high ambition of becoming a world-renowned professor. Now he comes over and in turn asks about the incident on the boulevard the night before. Dr Chebutykin gives us a staggeringly significant new detail which he failed to mention earlier, when Irina was around, which is that when Tuzenbakh insulted Solyony, the latter challenged him to a duel and … that it’s scheduled to happen just about now, in the woods across the river (which we can see painted on the backdrop of the scenery). A duel!

Masha and Andrew all take it very lightly that the man their sister is engaged to is about to fight a duel. Instead of rushing to stop it or call the cops Andrew just feebly says it’s all very immoral. In a further development we learn that the duellists have requested Dr Chebutykin to attend on them!

Masha is disgusted with all this talk so walks away leaving Andrew to confide to Dr Chebutykin that he loves his wife, he loves her dearly, but sometimes he really doesn’t like her, she’s so bossy and vulgar. the doctor gives him the advice to put on his hat, pick up his stick set off walking and walk and walk and walk and never come back.

Enter Solyony and two of his seconds backstage. Solyony spots the doctor, walks over and tells him it’s time to go to the duel and they leave. Enter Irina and Tuzebakh. He tells her he just has to pop into town to, er, see some friends off. She knows he’s lying but wonders why (so she’s more or less the only character who doesn’t know about the duel). He tells her how much he loves her, that he’s loved her for five years, that she gets more beautiful every day…just a shame she doesn’t love him.

Irina cries and says yes, she doesn’t love him, she’s never loved anyone. Her heart feels like a grand piano that’s locked and nobody can find the key. I supposed it’s a scene of great poignancy because the audience strongly suspects Tuzenbakh is going to his death while his half-hearted fiancée knows nothing. He wants to say something mighty and significant, to sum up his love of life and her, but all he can think of is to ask her to ask one of the servants to put some coffee on for when he gets back.

Now, something has to fill the time it’s going to take Tuzenbakh to go and get in a boat, be ferried across the river to the forests beyond, find his way to the duelling place etc and so Chekhov gives Andrew, alone onstage, a massive speech asking where did it all go wrong leading into a long description of how awful this town is, how everyone is like everyone else, bored out of their minds, and are bringing up children who will be bored to death in turn. (Of course we latecomers know that Russians born around 1900 were fated to have anything but a boring life.)

The retainer Ferapont enters with some papers to sign so there’s some more business with reading anc complaining about these, before Andrew tries to cheer himself up by adopting the Verishin strategy of imagining what life will be like for his heirs two or three hundred years in the future. Hopefully their lives will be completely different.

He works himself up into such a state that Natasha leans out the window and yells at him to shut up. Which in turn wakes up baby Bobik who starts to cry and she turns her yelling indoors to tell him off etc. Stage business to cover Tuzenbakh’s journey to the duelling place.

Even more business follows when a couple of travelling musicians wander onstage and start performing. Olga tells the ancient nanny Alfisa to give them some money, which she does and they move on. This allows Anfisa to explain that although Natasha’s kicked her out of the house Olga has found a nice little crib for her at the school, so her story’s ending happily.

Enter Verishin who’s also leaving with the regiment and wants to say a private goodbye to Masha which is going to be difficult into the always hyper-busy Prozorov household. Olga asks him if they’ll ever meet again and he simply replies, No.

Masha enters and they have a short heart-breaking parting with a long kiss then lots of tears, then she won’t let him go but he extricates himself and hands her over to Olga. Kulygin enters, he saw some of this but tells Masha he forgives her and now they can go back to the old way of living which is, somehow, absolutely crushing.

Masha sings to herself the little song about a green boat which she has sung at moments of crisis throughout the play and that’s when a shot is heard in the distance.

The triviality continues. Masha’s anguish is made unbearable by the complete reasonableness and forgiveness of her husband who pulls out a fake moustache and beard he confiscated off a boy in class. Now he puts it on to make them laugh and Masha laughs then bursts into hopeless sobbing again. All her hopes for life have been utterly crushed.

Natasha arrives on the scene and it is clear how she has totally defeated the Prozorov family. She bosses everyone around, tells the maid to push the pram, criticises Kulygin for wearing the silly beard, says the minute Irina leaves the house she’s going to move Andrew into her room so he can scrape away on his violin and first thing she’s going to do is have the beautiful avenue of trees chopped down (anticipating the massacre of trees in The Cherry Orchard). She criticises Irina for dressing so plainly which, of course, reverses the sisters’ chiding of Natasha for dressing so gaudily at the start of the play.

They hear a military band in the distance as Dr Chebutykin enters in a hurry. He goes up and whispers in Olga’s ear. She says, No no it can’t be true. Irina begs to know and Chebutykin quite brutally tells her Tuzenbakh’s just been killed in a duel before wandering off, sitting down, taking out a paper and delivering his trademark line, ‘Well, it doesn’t matter anyway’ and then humming his stupid song’, Tarara boom di-ay.’

Now you might have expected a world-shattering howl of anguish and a long speech about the Injustices of Life but in fact Irina starts to weep quietly and just says, ‘I knew it’. Instead all three sisters are given a kind of collective last word as they speak in sequence, almost inn unison, almost with a musical effect.

And what they say is oddly, eerily cool and unmoved, a kind of vision of philosophical passivity, of how they must commit themselves to hard work and how this will bring about a better future. Did Chekhov in the slightest believe this or is it just a trope to thread throughout the play and, here, to end it with i.e an entirely aesthetic strategy? Or is is designed to convey the puzzlement, the bewilderment at life’s imponderability of the three sisters?

MASHA: Oh, listen to the band! They’re all leaving us and one has gone right away and will never never come back , and we shall be left alone to begin our lives again. We must go on living, we must.
IRINA: [puts her head on Olga’s breast]: What is all this for? Why all this suffering? The answer will be known one day and then there will be no more mysteries left, but till then life must go on, we must work and work and think of nothing else. I’ll go off alone tomorrow to teach at a school and spend my whole life serving those who may need me. It’s autumn now and it will soon be winter, with everything buried in snow, and I shall work, work, work.
OLGA [embraces both her sisters]: Listen to the band. What a splendid, rousing tune, it puts new heart into you, doesn’t it? Oh, my God! In time we shall pass on forever and be forgotten. Our faces will be forgotten and our voices and how many of us there were. But our sufferings will bring happiness to those who come after us, peace and joy will reign on earth, and there will be kind words and kind thoughts for us and our times. We still have our lives ahead of us, my dears, so let’s make the most of them.
[The music becomes fainter and fainter. KULYGIN, smiling cheerfully, emerges from the house with a hat and coat while ANDREW continues to push the pram with Bobik in it.]
CHEBUTYKIN: [singing softly]: Traraboomdeay, ley’s have a tune today. [Reads the newspaper.] None of it matters. Nothing matters.
OLGA: If we could only know, oh if we could only know!

Fates

Olga will continue as an unmarried head teachers.

Masha will continue to be unhappily married to Kulygin.

Irina has said she wants to persevere as a teacher.

Natasha is mistress of the family home, in charge of everything.

Andrei is stuck in his marriage with two children, unwilling and unable to do anything for his wife or himself.

The characters describe themselves

As I’ve pointed out it’s a trick or trait of Chekhov that, rather than have the audience deduce how they’re feeling from their dialogue or actions, he always has his characters declare it in the most straightahead, bluntest kind of way. Strikes me as the opposite of subtle:

IRINA: I’m in such a good mood, I don’t know why. (p.172)

MASHA: I’m down in the dumps today, I feel so depressed… (p.175)

VERSHININ: I’m more pleased than I can say, I really am. (p.177)

Similarly, he has them just come out and describe their backstories or situations with equal lack of subtlety:

VERSHININ: I have a wife and two little girls, my wife is in poor health… (p.183)

KULYGIN: My name is Kulygin and I teach at the local high school, I’m a senior assistant master. (p.183)

KULYGIN: I’m happy today. I’m on top of the world. (p.184)

RODÉ: I teach gymnastics at the high school here. (p.188)

Leave me alone

MASHA: Don’t talk to me then…leave me alone. (p.200)

ANDREW: Leave me alone, for heaven’s sake, leave me alone. (p.229)

Characters in all Chekhov’s plays continually ask to be left alone but no-one does leave them alone. Nobody can escape. They seem to live in these households of eight or so people who are constantly prying and spying and commenting on each others’ behaviour. The effect is very claustrophobic. They seem to be walking demonstrations of Jean-Paul Sartre’s well-known epigram that hell is other people.

Sssshhh, there’s somebody coming!

Chekhov’s houses are always very populous and, as someone or other is always declaring inappropriate love to someone else because they’re married or the other person’s married, I noticed the number of times when women (it’s always women) say things like:

MASHA: There’s somebody coming! You’d better talk about something else. (p.194)

And men have to reassure and cajole them:

ANDREW: Oh, they can’t see us, they really can’t. (p.189).

Hyperbole

Three (miserable) sisters:

IRINA: I feel as I’d gone out of my mind.

MASHA: I feel so depressed.

MASHA: Oh damn this life, it’s the absolute limit!

IRINA: Life has been choking us like weeds in a garden.

IRINA: Do you know I dream about Moscow every night? I feel as if I’d gone out of my mind.

OLGA: It really depressed me, actually makes me feel ill.

IRINA: Oh, it’s frightful, absolutely frightful. I’ve had as much as I can take, I just can’t stand it any more.

IRINA: I feel I’m losing touch with everything fine and genuine in life. It’s like sinking down, down into a bottomless pit. I’m desperate.

IRINA: I’m lonely and depressed with nothing to do and I hate my room…

MASHA: I feel I’m going to burst…

MASHA: I’ve made a mess of my life. I don’t want anything now.

Visions of the future

In ‘Uncle Vanya’ Dr Astrov is given a hobby horse subject completely separate from the action namely his concern for the ecology of forests. This gives him something to deliver speeches about for pages and which is, I think, designed to act as a relief from the characters’ obsessive self-centredness.

The same thing, structurally, happens in this play: Baron Tuzenbakh and Vershinin are both given the same talking point which is what life will be like for people in the future and what, looking back, they will think of the people of this time.

These subjects may or may not be relevant or interesting in their own right but, in dramatic terms, they’re part of giving all the characters identifiable, repeating tics or topics:

  • Solyonyi and his stupid jokes and splashing scent on himself
  • Dr Chebutykin and his pockets full of newspapers, but also his oft-repeated conviction that we aren’t really here and we don’t really exist
  • Rodé snapping away on his camera
  • Olga telling everyone how tired she is
  • Masha forever singing ‘A green boat by a curving shore’
  • Irina forever wishing they were off to Moscow

It sets the scene of the debate between Tuzenbakh and Vershinin where the two men propose their opposing points of view about the future, namely in the future everything will be great versus in the future everything will be exactly the same (p.197).

Thoughts

It’s complicated, isn’t it? Once the eight or so key characters are up and running they have all kinds of interactions. Onstage this may well work but, for me, there are two problems:

  1. the characters’ personalities are too schematic, they are given 2 or 3 tropes, tics or topics each and then trot them out like robots
  2. I suppose they’re put through their paces with admirable inventiveness (the town fire was unexpected) and yet, somehow, it all feels mechanical to me, like the parts of a Swiss watch, beautifully engineered, reliably ticking over, yet somehow pointless

Natasha’s victory

One of the many ways of looking at this complicated narrative is that Natasha wins. The bourgeois Prozorov sisters mocked her dress and manners at the start of the play but by the end Natasha is in complete, unquestioned control. She has outfaced and outwitted them all.

From this perspective the most notable thing about the Prozorov sisters, and four siblings, is how pathetic they are. To quote that great literary critic Donald Trump, they are losers. From this point of view all the rhetoric about work and finer futures and sacrifice and all the rest of it is the self-justifying excuses of people who lose.

Natasha doesn’t need any fancy ideas, she is notably uneducated, she goes with her instinct to dominate and control…and she cleans up, she wins, she triumphs. The triumph of the uneducated but unforgiving and determined working class over the feeble bourgeoisie was to be the subject of Chekhov’s final play – and, maybe, to be played out in the huge stage of Russian history less than a generation later…

Comparison with Waiting for Godot

The sense of stasis, of the characters being stuck in a situation they find hellish, kept reminding me of Waiting For Godot.

ESTRAGON:
Well, shall we go?
VLADIMIR:
Yes, let’s go.
[They do not move.]

Compare with:

IRINA: I esteem, I highly value the Baron, he’s a splendid man; I’ll marry him, I’ll consent, only let’s go to Moscow! I implore you, let’s go! There’s nothing better than Moscow on earth! Let’s go, Olga, let’s go!

They do not move.


Credit

Quotations are from the 1980 World’s Classic paperback edition of Five Plays by Anton Chekhov, translated by Ronald Hingley.

Related links

Related reviews

  • Chekhov reviews
  • Russian reviews

Uncle Vanya by Anton Chekhov (1897)

‘I’m so depressed, Sonya, you can’t think how depressed I am.’
(‘Uncle’ Vanya Voynitsky, aged 47, at the end of ‘Uncle Vanya’)

Summary

Vanya Voynitskaya is 47. He lives with his widowed mother Mrs Voynitskaya on the latter’s country estate which he manages full time. Alongside this work he has devoted his life to the service of his sister’s husband, the art scholar and professor Aleksander Serebryakov. Vanya’s sister and the professor had a daughter, Sonya, now in her 20s, who lives with Vanya and his mother on the estate and helps them to run it. She is dutiful and loyal and, as the play makes clear numerous times, ‘plain’ i.e. not beautiful or glamorous, but loyal and hard working.

Vanya’s sister i.e. the professor’s first wife, died young and he has recently remarried a considerably younger woman, Helen, who is young and beautiful.

The professor is retired and he and this young beautiful wife have been staying on the Voynitsky estate because his publications never brought him much money. This has brought to a head Vanya’s simmering feelings of resentment at having worked tooth and nail at the mind-numbing work of managing the estate and, in the evenings, copying out and proofreading the professor’s papers and articles. Now, too late, at the age of 47, he realises it’s all been an absurd and futile waste of time.

As in all the other plays there’s a local doctor, Dr Astrov, who both commentates on the family woes but also gets involved in the farcical love plot. Because central to the plot is mismatched love interests which the characters take as tragic but the audience is free to regard as farcical. Here it is that both Vanya and Dr Astrov are head-over-heels in love with the glamorous young wife, Helen, but she rejects both of them, preferring to be loyal to her wizened and ill old husband; while (sub-plot 2) ‘plain’ Sonya is in love with Dr Astrov, at least in part because he’s the only other man who enters the terribly small, closed, isolated world of the estate.

The first three acts slowly introduce us to the characters and all their mixed and conflicted feelings before the play comes to a climax in the fourth act when Professor Serebryakov announces to the assembled cast his plan to sell the estate and invest the money so as to secure a better return and in order to fund his lifestyle in the city.

Vanya snaps, delivering a long rant about how he’s sacrificed his entire life for the selfish professor who now proposes to sell off his family’s estate and chuck him, his mother and Sonya out on the street. Vanya runs offstage and gets a pistol with which he chases the professor backstage then back onstage, taking potshots at the terrified old man.

But Vanya is a failure in this as in everything else, misses, then throws away the gun and collapses on the floor, sobbing his heart out. Everyone forgives him but the professor, wisely, senses it’s time to terminate his stay and go somewhere else – as does beautiful Helen who, during the previous acts, had been subjected to kisses and embraces by both Dr Astrov and Vanya – so they pack and leave.

Which leaves Mrs Voynitskaya, Vanya and Sonya and their old Nanny, Marina, to resume their quiet, calm, stiflingly dull existence with Vanya shown returning to the mind-numbingly boring chore of doing the estate accounts, Mrs Mrs Voynitskaya reading, Nanny sowing a sock and the hanger-on, Telegin, quietly strumming his guitar in the background.

The play ends with a page-long speech by plain dutiful Sonya, who has had her love for Dr Astrov rejected, declaring that everything will be alright when they die and go to heaven, God will wipe away their tears etc. Meanwhile, they must live lives of faith and hope. It’s open to directors and actors how this is delivered but it seemed to me to be a kind of peak of pitiful self-deception.

Characters and cast

  • Aleksandr Serebryakov – retired university professor, who has lived for years in the city on the earnings of his late first wife’s rural estate, managed for him by Vanya and Sonya
  • Helena Serebryakova – Serebryakov’s young and beautiful second wife, 27 years old
  • Sofia Serebryakova (Sonya) – Serebryakov’s daughter from his first marriage, she is of a marriageable age, but is considered plain
  • Maria Voynitskaya – the widow of a privy councillor and mother of Vanya (and of Vanya’s late sister, Serebryakov’s first wife)
  • Ivan Voynitsky (‘Uncle Vanya’)  – Maria’s son and Sonya’s uncle, also brother-in-law of Serebryakov, he is the title character of the play and is a disgruntled 47 years old
  • Dr Mikhail Astrov – a middle-aged country doctor who is deeply concerned about the destruction of the local forests; he has several lengthy speeches about the impact of destroying the forests on local wildlife which among the earliest discussions of ecological problems in world literature
  • Ilya Ilych Telegin, nicknamed “Waffles” for his pockmarked skin – an impoverished landowner, who now lives on the estate as a dependent of the family
  • Marina Timofeevna – an old nurse

Act 1

At Professor Serebryakov’s country estate, Astrov and Marina discuss how old Astrov has grown and his boredom with life as a country doctor. Vanya enters and complains of the disruption caused by the visit of Serebryakov and his wife, Yelena. Serebryakov, Yelena, Sonya, and Telegin return from a walk. Out of earshot of Serebryakov, Vanya calls him “a learned old dried mackerel” and belittles his achievements. Vanya’s mother, Maria Vasilyevna, who idolizes Serebryakov, objects. Vanya also praises Yelena’s beauty, arguing that faithfulness to an old man like Serebryakov is an immoral waste of vitality.

Astrov is forced to depart to attend to a patient, after making a speech on the preservation of the forests, a subject he is passionate about. Vanya declares his love to an exasperated Yelena.

Act 2

Several days later. Before going to bed, Serebryakov complains of pain and old age. Astrov arrives but the professor refuses to see him. After Serebryakov falls asleep, Yelena and Vanya talk. She speaks of the discord in the house, and Vanya speaks of dashed hopes. He feels that he has misspent his youth and he associates his unrequited love for Yelena with the disappointment of his life. Yelena refuses to listen. Vanya believed in Serebryakov’s greatness and was happy to support Serebryakov’s work; he has become disillusioned with the professor and his life feels empty. Astrov returns and the two talk. Sonya chides Vanya for his drinking, and points out that only work is truly fulfilling.

A storm starts and Astrov talks to Sonya about the house’s suffocating atmosphere; he says Serebryakov is difficult, Vanya is a hypochondriac, and Yelena is charming but idle. Sonya begs Astrov to stop drinking, telling him it is unworthy of him. It becomes clear that Sonya is in love with him and that he is unaware of her feelings.

Astrov leaves; Yelena enters and makes peace with Sonya, after mutual antagonism. Yelena reassures Sonya that she had strong feelings for Serebryakov when she married him, though that has proved illusory. Yelena confesses her unhappiness, and Sonya eulogises Astrov. In a happy mood, Sonya goes to ask the professor if Yelena may play the piano. Sonya returns with his negative answer.

Act 3

Vanya, Sonya and Yelena have been called together by Serebryakov. Vanya urges Yelena, once again, to break free. Sonya complains to Yelena that she has loved Astrov for years but he doesn’t notice her. Yelena volunteers to question Astrov and find out if he is in love with Sonya. Sonya is pleased, but wonders whether uncertainty is better than knowledge.

When Yelena asks Astrov about his feelings for Sonya, he says he has none, thinking that Yelena has brought up the subject of love to encourage him to confess his own feelings for her. Astrov kisses Yelena, and Vanya sees them. Upset, Yelena begs Vanya to use his influence to allow her and the professor to leave immediately. Yelena tells Sonya that Astrov doesn’t love her.

Serebryakov proposes to solve the family’s financial problems by selling the estate and investing the proceeds, which will bring in a significantly higher income (and, he hopes, leave enough over to buy a villa for himself and Yelena in Finland).

Angrily, Vanya asks where he, Sonya, and his mother would live, protests that the estate rightly belongs to Sonya, and that Serebryakov has never appreciated his self-sacrifice in managing the property. Vanya begins to rage against the professor, blaming him for his own failures, wildly claiming that, without Serebryakov to hold him back, he could have been a second Schopenhauer or Dostoevsky.

He cries out to his mother, but Maria insists that Vanya listen to the professor. Serebryakov insults Vanya, who storms out. Yelena begs to be taken away, and Sonya pleads with her father on Vanya’s behalf. Serebryakov exits to confront Vanya further. A shot is heard from offstage and Serebryakov returns, chased by Vanya, wielding a pistol. He fires again at the professor, but misses. He throws the gun down in self-disgust.

Act 4

A few hours later, Marina and Telegin discuss the planned departure of Serebryakov and Yelena. Vanya and Astrov enter, Astrov saying that in this district, only he and Vanya were “decent, cultured men” and that years of “narrow-minded life” have made them vulgar. Vanya has stolen a vial of Astrov’s morphine, presumably to commit suicide; Sonya and Astrov beg him to return it, which he eventually does.

Yelena and Serebryakov bid farewell. When Yelena says goodbye to Astrov, she embraces him, and takes one of his pencils as a souvenir. Serebryakov and Vanya make their peace, agreeing all will be as it was before. Once the outsiders have departed, Sonya and Vanya settle accounts, Maria reads a pamphlet, and Marina knits. Vanya complains of the heaviness of his heart, and Sonya, in response, speaks of living, working, and the rewards of the afterlife: “And our life will grow peaceful, tender, sweet as a caress…. You’ve had no joy in your life; but wait, Uncle Vanya, wait…. We shall rest.”

Some observations

The characters give running commentaries on themselves

The characters don’t just talk about their feelings as we all do, they give a running commentary on their feelings, it’s their main topic of conversation. This might be amusing if the feelings in question  weren’t monotonously the same old feelings of boredom, depression and despair. This crystallised for me in the scene where Serebryakov and Vanya have a stand-up shouting match about how the latter had sacrificed his life for the former, all witnessed by the feeble hanger-on Telegin. Telegin says:

TELEGIN: Vanya, my dear chap, don’t talk like this, for heaven’s sake. I’m trembling all over. Why spoil good relations? Please don’t.

Where I realised that nobody in real life would say ‘I’m trembling all over’. Either that’s an odd Russian locution which doesn’t translate very well, or – as I take it – it’s a typical Chekhov character describing how they feel, not in some subtle understated way, but in a tabloid headline way, describing how they’re shaking or (as with other characters) feeling faint or gripped with anguish etc etc. They might as well hold up a placard, as in a Brecht play, with a headline saying UPSET, ANGRY, IN LOVE and so on.

Ronald Hingley’s introduction and the Wikipedia articles about Chekhov’s plays talk about their subtle sub-texts, and I take the point that the plays’ numerous pregnant pauses are designed to let the audience savour the implications of remarks and dialogues between characters, which do sometimes have subtle effects. But, at the same time, the plays contain plenty of these I’m trembling all over type of remarks which are the opposite of subtle. The character might as well hold up a placard saying I’m very upset.

In fact, the characters are continually, obsessively telling everyone else exactly how they feel. Maybe there are ‘subtle subtexts’ at work but they struggle to surface between the characters’ continual tabloid headline exclamations of how they’re feeling.

Shabby gentility

In ‘Uncle Vanya’ we learn why the characters in all Chekhov plays can’t leave their estates, it’s financial. Their estates only give a small annual revenue (2% of the estate’s capital) which is enough to live off in the country but not to support an establishment in town. In other words, they are the poor landed gentry, the petit gentry. Which also explains why their social activities are so stunted.

Russian boredom, English gaiety

Why do all Chekhov’s go round the bend with boredom from living in the Russian countryside, becoming so miserable that they feel like killing themselves and often do, while Jane Austen’s characters living in the English countryside have a whale of a time?

Chekhovian farce

Two aspects of Chekhov’s plays combine to make them feel like Whitehall farces: 1) they way they have eight or so characters knocking around in large houses and 2) the way in each play characters are inappropriately in love i.e. in love with the wrong person. In Vanya I noticed something which crops up in the previous two plays as well, which is the women characters (it’s always women who are petrified of being found in compromising positions) hissing at the man who’s chatting them up and attempting to kiss them, ‘Shh someone might hear you’ or ‘Someone might come in’ or ‘I think someone’s coming’. So number one there’s the paranoia of illicit couples about being caught and then 2) half the time they do get caught, as Vanya walks in on Helen and Dr Astrov having a snog.

They live in big houses (Vanya’s house has 26 rooms!) which are far too big for them and has several consequences. One is to bring out the way the characters are like pygmies living smaller shrunken lives compared to their glorious ancestors who filled and used these house.

It also means the the plays have a strong element of Whitehall farce with characters running in and out of the numerous doors. I’m mentioned the way the female characters, when about to kiss their lovers, are always paranoid about being interrupted by someone coming in and seeing them. And the final scene where Vanya emerges from the door at the back before chasing the professor round the stage is, I think, meant to be tragic but is, at the same time, farcical.

Critique

Critics talk about ‘the emotional turmoil of Chekhov’s characters as they reveal their trauma and deeply complicated feelings’ – but are they ‘deeply complicated’?

Vanya regrets throwing his life away on a worthless academic. He thinks he’s fallen in love with Helen but she understands it’s just a function of his frustration. Similarly, Helen rejects Dr Astrov’s pitch for her, declaring she will stay loyal to her ageing (and probably worthless) husband. Astrov makes his pitch for Helen, is rejected, and barely even notices plain Sonya who loves him so much, riding off back to his house at the end of the play. And Sonya just has to put up with being plain and rejected, probably living the whole of her life unloved and turning into a spinster.

Far from ‘deeply complicated’ these feel to me to be mechanical pieces moving through a clockwork plot which, above all, rotates around FRUSTRATED LOVE, surely the oldest, corniest subject in all literature.

But then there’s no point me not really ‘getting’ Chekhov. He is universally accepted as one of the Greats of European theatre and countless productions, in his native Russia and here in England, have featured the very greatest acting talent who all agree on the scope his characters and plot give for depicting subtleties of feeling and the sense of fleeting emotions changing from moment to moment. I can read that that’s what people say about Chekhov. It just doesn’t come over at all to me, in actually reading the plays.


Credit

Page references are to the 1980 World’s Classic paperback edition of Five Plays by Anton Chekhov, translated by Ronald Hingley.

Related links

Related reviews

  • Chekhov reviews
  • Russian reviews