Ulysses by James Joyce: introduction

‘You have the cursed jesuit strain in you, only it’s injected the wrong way.’
(Buck Mulligan arguing with Stephen Dedalus)

Hold to the now, the here, through which all future plunges to the past.
(Stephen’s credo)

‘Your own name is strange enough. I suppose it explains your fantastical humour.’
(John Eglinton responding to Stephen’s lecture about Shakespeare)

Fabulous artificer. The hawklike man…
(Stephen’s self-mocking self description in the same scene)

I’ll tickle his catastrophe, believe you me.
(Simon Dedalus threatening to write a letter to Buck Mulligan’s mother exposing him, and demonstrating his vivid and generally comic turn of phrase)

—I beg your parsnips, says Alf.
(In the Cyclops chapter)

James Joyce is a world class literary giant on the basis of his 1922 novel ‘Ulysses’. It’s monster long – around 700 pages in most editions – and has a fearsome reputation for being a ‘difficult’. In many senses it is difficult, often very difficult, but I’m going to have a go at explaining it as simply as I can.

Joyce’s previous and much more conventional novel, ‘A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man’, (published in 1916) told the life story of a transparently fictional version of Joyce himself, named Stephen Dedalus, from toddlerdom to university. When described like that it sounds very straightforward; what complicates it is Joyce’s phenomenal intellectual powers and his increasingly experimental way with prose.

As in his set of short stories, Dubliners (published in 1912), on the surface all is realism, with realistic characters pottering round Dublin, getting into realistic scrapes and having realistic conversations. However, what was clear to perceptive readers of Dubliners from the get-go was that these stories are extremely carefully organised: at a meta level they are arranged so that the collection as a whole describes different stages of life – from boyhood japes in the early stories, to young manhood, maturity, through to the final story, titled The Dead. And within each story, there is also careful structuring and symbolism: for example, the short story ‘Grace’ opens with a middle-aged man passed out pissed in the toilets of a popular bar. He’s helped home by some mates and put to bed while his pals work with his wife to persuade him to go on a religious retreat to try and help him give up the booze. So far so mundane, until someone points out that the three locations of the story – downstairs toilet, bedroom and church – can be seen as the three locations of the afterlife: hell, purgatory and paradise. And once you know this, you are able to spot further little clues which have been sprinkled about the story, symbols or Latin phrases which subtly reference and gesture towards this concealed structure.

Well, magnify this method a thousandfold and you have ‘Ulysses’. I’ll consider it in three ways: first, the literal story; then the structure which underpins (or has been imposed) on it; thirdly, (some of) the linguistic innovations introduced in ‘Ulysses’, innovations which start slowly but spread to become completely rampant. It’s these innovations in prose style and structure which are the real stumbling blocks of the novel, often making it hard to read on the sentence, paragraph and page levels, presenting countless challenges to comprehension, and from relatively early on. But first, a look at the structure:

Structure

‘Ulysses’ is divided into 18 chapters, which are themselves gathered into three parts: part 1 contains 3 chapters; part 2 12 chapters; part 3 has 3 chapters.

What happens

Part 1: Chapters 1 to 3

At 8am on Thursday 4 June 1904 young Stephen Dedalus wakes up in the Martello Tower on Dublin Bay where he’s been dossing with a friend, medical student Malachi ‘Buck’ Mulligan. He’s cross because he was kept awake by the noisy nightmares of a third guest, the Englishman Haines. He’s also in a bad mood because Mulligan teases him because his (Stephen’s) mother recently died, and Stephen refused, on principle, to kneel by the bedside of his dying mother, something which now haunts him with guilt. This trio of young bucks go for a quick dip in the sea (well, fastidious Stephen doesn’t take part) then (in chapter 2) Stephen goes on to the school where he teaches part time, takes a history lesson, gets paid by the pedantic headmaster. In chapter 3 we are alone with Stephen and his thoughts as he walks along the beach.

Part 2: Chapter 4 to chapter 15

Cut back to 8am in the household of Leopold Bloom in central Dublin. Bloom is a middle-aged seller of newspaper advertising, a job which involves tramping the streets of Dublin touting for business. He’s married to Molly. He makes her breakfast in bed, fries breakfast for himself and then sets off on his day’s work. His day includes:

  • a trip to the Post Office
  • attending the funeral of a friend
  • visiting the office of a newspaper to place an ad
  • popping into Davy Byrne’s pub for a sandwich lunch
  • going to the National Library to look up an ad in an old newspaper, where his path doesn’t quite cross Stephen who is in the office of the Head Librarian, delivering another one of his literary theories, this time about the true meaning of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, to representatives of Dublin’s literary elite
  • Bloom has dinner at the Ormond Hotel while listening to other characters playing the piano and singing
  • Bloom moves on Barney Kiernan’s pub where he meets a character referred to only as The Citizen who is a pugnacious Irish nationalist who ends up trying to attack him
  • Bloom wanders out to Sandymount Strand on the seashore, and watches a young woman, Gerty MacDowell, who’s with some friends; aware of him watching her, Gerty deliberately flashes her legs in a sexy way and arouses Bloom so much that, watching from a safe distance as night falls on the beach, he masturbates to a climax: although it’s a little difficult to make out through Joyce’s highly-mannered prose what’s happening, it was this chapter which got ‘Ulysses’ banned in America and Britain
  • Bloom visits a maternity hospital where a family friend named Mina Purefoy is giving birth, and finally meets Stephen, who has been drinking with his medical student friends and is awaiting the arrival of his frenemy Buck Mulligan
  • when the maternity hospital drinking party breaks up, Stephen and his friend Lynch walk into Nighttown, Dublin’s red-light district, where Bloom follows them into Bella Cohen’s brothel; everyone is quite drunk by now and the scene is extremely long and filled with grotesque hallucinations, climaxing with Stephen being kicked out onto the street where he manages to get into an argument with a British soldier who knocks him to the ground where Bloom comes to his rescue

Part 3: Chapters 16 to 18

  • To sober him up, Bloom takes Stephen to a nearby cabman’s shelter by Butt Bridge where they encounter a drunken sailor
  • Bloom takes Stephen back to his place, makes him a cup of cocoa and they have a post-drunk conversation about the educational and cultural differences between them; they both go outside to pee in the garden; Stephen refuses Bloom’s offer of a bed for the night and staggers off into the night while Bloom goes to bed next to his sleeping wife
  • Chapter 18 is famous because it consists solely of Molly Bloom’s thoughts as she lies in bed next to her passed-out husband: the 40 or so pages contain only eight paragraphs with no punctuation in a tour-de-force of the relatively unknown technique of stream-of-consciousness: she remembers her various boyfriends and reminisces about courting and having sex with them, before the novel ends with a description of her having an orgasm, marked by the words yes yes yes which conclude this vast epic novel

There is One Big Fact I haven’t found space to explain yet and this is that, right from the start of his day, Bloom has known that a rival of his, the music impresario and flashy man-about-town, Hugh ‘Blazes’ Boylan, is going to call by his house, at 4pm that afternoon, supposedly to discuss details of the concert tour he’s arranged for Molly, but in reality to have sex with her. Bloom knows she is taking Boylan as her lover and yet feels powerless to stop it. And so he spends his entire day in a state of anxiety and suspense, continually looking at the clock at every venue he visits, in anticipation of zero hour; and then, after 4pm, reluctant to return to his house afterwards 1) lest he encounters the couple still at it of Boylan just leaving and 2) because he won’t know what to say to his wife.

So it’s a long book, and there’s a lot of words to read but I hope this summary shows that, on a basic narrative level, the story is relatively straightforward. All the events are highly realistic and plausible, if not actively boring and mundane, and once you’re told that this is the sequence of events the book describes, you can approach it with a lot less trepidation. What daunts people is the buried symbolism and above all the difficult prose style. Next: the Greek myth connection, or: why is it called Ulysses?

Ulysses and the Odyssey

Like every educated person, Joyce had read the two great epic poems of the ancient Greek author Homer, The Iliad and The Odyssey. The Iliad is a tragic account of the key episode at the heart of the ten-year-long Trojan War when the Greek hero Achilles, furious at the Greek leader Agamemnon, retires to his tent and refuses to fight. This has tragic consequences because when the Trojans counter-attack and make it as far as the Greek tents, Achilles lets his friend and soul-mate Patroclus put on his armour and rally the troops; Patroclus does this until he comes face to face with the Trojan hero Hector who slaughters him like a beast and the rest of the poem describes Achilles’ immense fury and bottomless grief.

But if the Iliad is tragic, the Odyssey has a very different feel. After the ten-year Trojan War ended, the Greek hero famous for his wily cunning, Odysseus, the man who came up with the idea of the Trojan Horse which led to the final defeat of the besieged city, it takes him ten further years to get home to his wife Penelope and his young son Telemachus (i.e. Odysseus is away from his kingdom of Ithaca for 20 years).

The poem actually opens near the end, with his last adventure, washing up on the shore of Princess Nausicaa, being discovered, bathed and dressed, then invited to a feast in her palace and it is here that he tells all the other guests his amazing adventures – being enslaved by Circe the magician, being held prisoner by the one-eyed Cyclops, sailing past the twin perils of Scylla and Charybdis, having to be tied to the mast in order not to give way to the seductive song of the Sirens, and many more.

Meanwhile, back in Ithaca, the Odyssey tells us how, throughout these ten long years, Odysseus’s faithful wife Penelope remained at home in their palace, putting off the many suitors who wanted to marry her and so inherit Odysseus’s kingdom. And it tells us how towards the end of this long period his son, Telemachus, come of age during his father’s absence, sets out on a quest of his own to find his father.

So with that understood, back to Joyce. Apparently Joyce had begun a story which he intended to be another short realistic yarn to join a revised edition of his short story collection ‘Dubliners’, about a Jewish advertising salesman with an unfaithful wife who wanders the streets in a peculiar frame of mind as he knows his wife is preparing to meet her lover, in his marital bed.

One thing led to another as Joyce wondered what if this advertising salesman met the young avatar he had created of himself in ‘A Portrait’, Stephen Dedalus? What would they discuss, what would they make of each other? And at some point he had the Eureka moment when it occurred to him that maybe this fellow Bloom’s wanderings around Dublin could be mapped onto Odysseus’s ancient adventures, maybe those ancient stories could give it a structure and, more than that, a kind of deep literary resonance, of the kind he was used to concealing in his Dubliners stories (like ‘Grace’, as described above),

When I tried to read ‘Ulysses’ at school I found it a great struggle because 1) I had no idea what was going on and 2) as the text progresses, the prose becomes difficult to read (see next section). You really need to know that the three central characters are modern avatars of Homer’s three characters: Bloom is wily old Odysseus; Stephen plays the role of his son, Telemachus; and Molly is the faithful Penelope waiting at home for her man. Except that they’re not a perfect match, are they? Stephen isn’t actually Bloom’s son and when, at the end, Bloom suggests a closer friendship Stephen mumbles something and wanders off into the night. No reconciliation there. And Molly, she is hardly the model of a faithful wife, in fact the whole point is that she is the exact opposite. And Bloom is hardly a macho Greek warrior, very much the reverse, he is a shy and diffident Jew in a Catholic country, liable to be discriminated against and picked on. So the novel’s central characters are in no way like-for-like matches of the Homeric epic, they are something more like ironic reincarnations, satirical avatars, reflecting the comic bathos of modern life.

But if I didn’t understand the roles played by these characters, the biggest single stumbling block to grasping the mythic resonances of the novel was the way the 18 chapters in Joyce’s text have no titles. Just giving them titles, and a sentence of explanation, would have transformed my experience.

As soon as I came across a book which explained that each of the chapters reflects or is based on a specific episode from the Odyssey, and clearly indicated which one was which, my whole reading experience was transformed. Augmented by the knowledge that the 18 chapters are further grouped into three parts which themselves are based on the main thematic elements of the Odyssey story, as follows:

  1. the first three chapters, describing Stephen waking in the tower, going to school and wandering into Dublin, are titled the Telemachia or wanderings of Telemachus
  2. the 12 central chapters can be thought of as the Odyssey proper, describing the many adventures of Bloom during the day
  3. the final three chapters, when Bloom takes Stephen home, can be grouped as the Nostos, Greek for return so the ‘Return’ part of the story, reflecting the final chapters of Homer’s poem which describe the homecoming of the long-absent hero

Why Ulysses and not Odysseus?

The ancient Romans not only co-opted many of the Greek gods, subsuming them into the existing Latin pantheon, they did the same with many of the mortal heroes of ancient Greece. When the Romans translated the Greek legends from Greek into Latin, they sometimes found it easier to change the names as well, to make them easier to pronounce. The early Latin translators of Homer probably adapted the Greek Ὀδυσσεύς into the Sicilian Οὐλίξης, and then the Etruscan Uluxe, before arriving at the shorter, more Roman-friendly Ulysses.

So that’s why you see two names being used for the same person: Odysseus is his original Greek name as used by Homer; Ulysses is the name used by Roman authors, such as Virgil, when describing the Tale of Troy.

So why did Joyce use the Latin name? Apparently, when he was a boy of 12, Joyce’s thoughts on the subject were crystallised when he first read the story in Charles Lamb’s book ‘The Story of Ulysses’ (1808), and that version of the name stuck. Having been brought up in a heavily Catholic school, Latin was all around him, in the Mass and liturgy and so on, and so he took to the Latinate forms (unlike late Victorian English Protestant private schools of the time, where there would have been as much emphasis on ancient Greek and so the Greek names are preferred by English writers).

Plot structure version 2

So here’s the chapter structure again, but this time indicating the episode from the Odyssey which each one is based on and explaining the parallels with the Homeric episode, such as they are:

Part 1: The Telemachia (the wanderings of Telemachus / Stephen)

Chapter 1: Telemachus

8am. Introducing Stephen Dedalus, bunking in the Martello Tower being rented by Buck Mulligan. Breakfast. Stephen should be mourning his recently dead mother and so borrows an all-black suit from Mulligan. In other words, he is dressed in mourning for the whole of the novel.

Chapter 2: Nestor (wise king of Pylos, advisor to the heroes)

Stephen’s encounter with school headmaster Garrett Deasy, who asks him to take a letter to the newspaper about foot-and-mouth disease. (Which gives rise to Stephen’s mortified expectation that Mulligan will mock him as ‘the bullockbefriending bard’, which becomes one of many recurring phrases, not to mention later cattle-related jokes such as someone being a bull in a china shop etc.)

[Myth parallel: Remember I mentioned that Bloom, Stephen and Molly are not direct avatars of their heroic predecessors but more like satirical, ironic modern versions. Well, as you can see here, the pompous Unionist headmaster Deasy is far indeed from being an avatar of wise old king Nestor of Greek mythology. Quite obviously he is a comic parody and yet there are commonalities: Nestor trained young horses, Deasy’s career is training teenage boys.]

Chapter 3: Proteus (the shape-shifting sea god from Greek myth)

Stephen wanders down to the seashore at Sandymount Strand and his mind wanders, free-associating ideas and memories from school and university, shreds of knowledge, quotes in various languages, perceptions and the rhythmic sound of the waves all melding in his mind to make this one of the most daunting of all the chapters to read, certainly in the first half.

[Myth parallel: You can see how the concept of the shape-shifting god maps nicely onto the endless shape-shifting of the protagonist’s mind.]

Part 2: the Odyssey (the wanderings of Ulysses / Leopold Bloom)

Chapter 4: Calypso

Cut back to 8am and Leopold Bloom, waking up, having breakfast, reading his mail, taking a letter from Blazes Boylan to his wife Molly in bed.

[Myth parallel: Calypso was a nymph from Greek mythology, famous for holding the hero Odysseus captive on her island, Ogygia, for seven years. Note that here, at the start of Bloom’s novel, Molly is Calypso. In the final chapter the same Molly stands in for the completely different figure of Penelope. Which shows you how Joyce’s parallels are exact in some respects but can be very loose if needs be.]

Chapter 5: Lotus Eaters

Bloom has an hour to kill before he has to attend Paddy Dignam’s funeral at 11am so he does a handful of chores in a lazy sensual mood: he goes to the Post Office, posts a letter, wanders into a Catholic church (incense and gold), buys a bar of lemon soap at a chemist and fantasises about paying a visit to Dublin’s Turkish baths.

[Myth parallel: The Lotus Eaters were a mythical people from Homer’s Odyssey, living on an island where they ate the narcotic lotus flower which caused blissful forgetfulness, a desire to stay, and loss of ambition. This is one of the more oblique of the Homeric parallels.]

Chapter 6: Hades or hell

Along with three friends, including Stephen’s father Simon Dedalus, Bloom attends the funeral of Paddy Dignam, taking the long journey by funeral carriage across Dublin to the burial in Glasnevin cemetery. This triggers in Bloom thoughts of his own son, Rudy, who died young, and of his father who committed suicide with poison.

[Myth parallel: This is one of the more obvious and direct allusions, matching Odysseus’s trip to the Greek underworld and a modern funeral.]

Chapter 7: Aeolus, the god of wind

This chapter is notable for the way the text is broken up by no fewer than 63 captions in the style of newspaper headlines, ironically summarising the content of each section.

At the office of the Dublin newspaper, the Freeman’s Journal, Bloom walks past the huge printing machines to the editor’s office where he attempts to place an ad for a client. Stephen arrives at the same office bringing (as promised) Deasy’s letter about foot-and-mouth disease. Bloom notices Stephen and that his boots are dirty but they do not actually meet. Instead the chapter mostly consists of long wordy conversations between half a dozen editors, hacks and scroungers, about each other, Dublin gossip, and racing tips.

[Myth parallel: In Greek mythology Aeolus was the keeper of the winds, ruling from the island of Aeolia where he held the violent winds captive in a bag. Control of the winds of information and opinion is an ironic or satirical way of thinking about a newspaper, and gassy windiness also describes the banter of the 7 or 8 characters gathered in the office.]

Chapter 8: Lestrygonians (a race of giant, cannibalistic ogres in Greek mythology)

Bloom wanders the streets feeling hungry, bumps into an old flame, Josie Breen, notices the (real life) author A.E. walking past him with a lady acolyte. He enters Burton’s restaurant but is overwhelmed by the smell and sight of so many people eating, so leaves and pops into Davy Byrne’s pub for a light lunch of a cheese sandwich and a glass of Burgundy wine. When he leaves, 4 or 5 other characters discuss his character.

Out on the street, he helps a blind man (who we later learn is a piano tuner) to cross the road and ponders at length all the implications of being blind – then walks on to the National Library. Thinking about food has led him to consider the human body as a machine, food in-poo out, which leads to the eccentric speculation whether traditional Greek statues were depicted with anuses. As he enters the National Library he has a quick squint up at the big statues flanking the entrance, to check.

[Myth parallel: obsession with food links the classical reference and the modern chapter.]

Chapter 9: Scylla and Charybdis

Cut to Stephen in the head librarian’s office at the National Library delivering another one of his literary theories, this time about the true meaning of Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’, appropriately enough because he is dressed in mourning (though for a dead mother not a dead father, as is the case with the Danish prince). Stephen and Bloom’s paths nearly cross as the latter pops in to look up an ad in an old newspaper but, again, they don’t actually meet.

[Myth parallel: In the Odyssey Odysseus’ ship has to sail the narrow channel between the twin monsters Scylla and Charybdis. I’ve read a clever interpretation pointing out that the two monsters can be mapped on to the two types of aesthetic theory dramatised in this chapter: Stephen’s theory of Shakespeare insists that the Bard’s great plays arose from the tribulations of his own sometimes squalid personal life but he’s presenting it to the older generation of Dublin critics who believe art should be about beautiful timeless spiritual ideals – so it’s these two opposing theories which represent the two legendary monsters, and which Joyce the author had to navigate between. Clever. There might also be a canny little micro-parallel because, as Bloom enters the Library, he walks between Stephen and his friend Mulligan exiting, who also represent two ends of a spectrum, Mulligan all glib flashy smartness, Stephen, deep but gloomy introspection.]

Chapter 10: Wandering Rocks

Nineteen short vignettes describe the movements of the central figures and about 30 secondary characters through the streets of Dublin. The episode begins by following kind-hearted Father Conmee, a Jesuit priest, walking north and stopping for a kind word for various parishioners, and ends with an account of the cavalcade of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, William Ward, Earl of Dudley, processing through the streets on his way to inaugurate the Mirus bazaar in aid of funds for Mercer’s hospital, and with the response of the 19 or so characters described in the preceding vignettes to his carriage as it passes.

[Myth parallel: Wandering rocks and wandering Dubliners.]

Chapter 11: Sirens

Bloom has dinner at the Ormond Hotel whose bar is dominated by the ministrations of two barmaids, dark-haired Miss Kennedy and brunette Miss Douce, while other characters gossip and then play the piano and sing some airs in the hotel’s dining room. Bloom gets a pen and paper to write a furtive reply to his lover Martha’s letter to him.

[Myth parallel: In Greek mythology the sirens were enchanting beings, half-woman, half-bird, who lured sailors to shipwreck and death with their irresistible songs; so the sirens are represented by the two barmaids, who don’t themselves sing but the scene is full of characters playing and singing, not least Stephen’s father, Simon.]

Chapter 12: Cyclops

Up till now the chapters have been cast in what you could call basic stream of consciousness, albeit often difficult to follow. The remaining six chapters of the novel are all longer and each one has its own individual format. Chapter 12 breaks the convention of the novel up to now by being narrated by an unnamed Dubliner who has a completely different ‘voice’ or style from either Stephen or Bloom.

This narrator works as a debt collector and goes to Barney Kiernan’s pub where he meets a character referred to only as ‘The Citizen’ who is a vehement Irish nationalist. When Bloom arrives at the pub, he is subjected to an antisemitic rant by the Citizen and various other characters come to his defence.

[Myth parallel: The Cyclops in Homer’s Odyssey was Polyphemus, a giant, one-eyed son of the sea god Poseidon who captured Odysseus and his men in his cave. This monster eats several of the sailors before Odysseus manages to get him drunk then blind him with a sharpened stake, and escaping. So the Citizen is the Cyclops and the one-eyed reference is a satirical take on the bigoted monomania of Irish nationalism.]

Chapter 13: Nausicaa

Bloom wanders out to Sandymount Strand where he watches a young woman, Gerty MacDowell, who flashes her legs to excite him. The first half is written as a parody of a romance magazine, the second half more realistically from Bloom’s point of view.

[In Homer’s Odyssey, Nausicaa was daughter of King Alcinous and Queen Arete of Phaeacia, famous for discovering and helping the shipwrecked Odysseus, giving him clothes, food, and guidance to her father’s palace. So the reincarnation of the elegant princess as a flirty young woman is obviously full of ironies and a vivid example of the general idea of how ‘fallen’ or degraded the modern world is.]

Chapter 14: Oxen of the Sun

Bloom visits the maternity hospital where Mina Purefoy is giving birth, and finally meets Stephen, who has been drinking with his medical student friends. At the end the drinking party breaks up, Mulligan catching the train back to his tower while Stephen drunkenly blunders off to the red light district accompanied by his pal, medical student Vincent Lynch. Worried about him, a much more sober Bloom follows.

[In the Odyssey Odysseus and his men come to the island of the sun god Helios, and are warned not to touch his holy cattle. When Odysseus goes off to pray for guidance his hungry men slaughter, roast and eat some of the cattle. Odysseus returns and tells them to flee but their ships are pursued by the sun god’s anger and most of his men are wrecked and drowned. The parallel is loose here, as this chapter is famous for mimicking the growth of the foetus in its mother’s womb by parodying the evolution of English from the original Anglo-Saxon onwards.]

Chapter 15: Circe

Bloom follows Stephen and his pal Lynch into a brothel where they both experience a series of grotesque Rabelaisian hallucinations. After smashing the chandelier with his walking stick, Stephen is kicked out onto the street where he gets into a fight with a British soldier and is knocked down, leaving Bloom to pick him up and sort him out.

[In the Odyssey, Circe was a powerful sorceress who used her magic to turn Odysseus’s men into swine and keep them imprisoned for years. Obviously there are no years here, just one night, and there is no crew, just Stephen, Lynch and Bloom. But the monstrous brothelkeeper Bella Cohen is a fittingly grotesque parody of the beautiful magical Circe of Homer.]

Part 3: Nostos (the Return)

Chapter 16: Eumaeus

[Myth parallel: in the Odyssey, Eumaeus is the loyal swineherd of Odysseus, a man of noble birth kidnapped as a child who had become a trusted friend of the master and is the first point of contact for the disguised hero upon his return to Ithaca.]

In the novel, having saved Stephen from arrest after his altercation with the soldier, Bloom takes Stephen to the cabman’s shelter near Butt Bridge where they encounter a drunken sailor: so the drunken sailor is the parallel to Eumaeus.

Chapter 17: Ithaca

[Myth parallel: In the Odyssey, Ithaca is Odysseus’s kingdom to which he returns.]

In the novel Ithaca it is Bloom’s house, to which he brings Stephen for a cup of cocoa.

Chapter 18: Penelope

[Myth parallel: In the Odyssey, Penelope is Odysseus’s loyal wife who waits for 20 long years for her husband to return, spurning the advances of numerous eligible suitors to replace the husband they all claim is dead.]

In the novel, Penelope is reincarnated as Molly Bloom, and the novel ends by abandoning the men and the male perspective altogether and ending with the huge seamless stream-of-consciousness flow of Molly’s falling-asleep thoughts.

Technical innovations

So far I’ve talked about the ‘structure’ of the novel but I have barely mentioned the technical or style innovations which make it such a demanding read on the page, made it so notorious in its time, and for a generation afterwards made it feel as if Joyce had not just revolutionised the novel with his elaborate system of symbols and references, but had revolutionised English prose as well.

Two or three of these quirks or innovations had already appeared in ‘A Portrait’ but in ‘Ulysses’ they are cranked up to the max, along with new novelties.

1. Formal, studied prose

Not an innovation as such, just the foundation on which everything else sits: but Joyce’s prose, even at its least experimental, is surprisingly formal and stiff and mannered. He consistently writes sentences not as you’d expect them to flow but with a deliberate stiffness. He consistently puts words into a counter-intuitive order. After a while I realised he always puts the adverb where you don’t expect it, counter to its usual position in everyday English. As in: ‘He waited by the counter, inhaling slowly the keen reek of drugs…’ where putting ‘slowly’ after ‘inhaling’ makes you linger on it longer, process it more, gives it more weight. Or:

The carriage turned again its stiff wheels and their trunks swayed gently. Martin Cunningham twirled more quickly the peak of his beard.

You’d expect ‘again’ to come after ‘stiff wheels’; you’d expect ‘more quickly’ to come after ‘beard’ and so on. He does this even in his plainest sentences and it gives them a studied, calculated movement. You argue he does so in order to describe things, especially people’s actions, with a finicky super-precision. Here’s the start of chapter 6:

Martin Cunningham, first, poked his silkhatted head into the creaking carriage and, entering deftly, seated himself. Mr Power stepped in after him, curving his height with care.

Also, he enjoyed avoiding the common word and using the slightly more official or officious word or phrase. After helping him with his sums, Stephen watches Sargent hurriedly change and run out onto the sports field.

He stood in the porch and watched the laggard hurry towards the scrappy field where sharp voices were in strife. They were sorted in teams and Mr Deasy came away stepping over wisps of grass with gaitered feet. When he had reached the schoolhouse voices again contending called to him.

‘Where sharp voices were in strife‘ is not the easiest most colloquial way to describe a bunch of boys shouting on a football pitch. It is studied and formal. Ditto the third sentence which contains the odd phrase ‘voices again contending’. You or I might write ‘the sound of the boys arguing again’ but Joyce prefers this much more stiff and formal arrangement: ‘voices again contending’. And note ‘again’ in the unusual position, you or I would say ‘voices arguing again’, but putting it before the verb, this time, has the effect of making every word feel more studied and carefully presented, as at an exhibition of sentences.

So we must bear in mind that even when he’s trying to write relatively ‘straight’, before he got up to any formal tricks, Joyce’s prose style was already oddly stiff, spavined and constricted: highly self-conscious and ornately arranged. This lends even the most supposedly straightforward passages a certain stiff, presentational feel, before we get to any of his party tricks.

2. No speech marks

Joyce had a foible about/well thought-out intellectual objections (delete where applicable) to speech marks / quotation marks / inverted commas. In all the texts Joyce had final say over he replaced the conventional introduction of speech by double apostrophes with an em dash, with no indication where a piece of dialogue ended. Just this one change is surprisingly confusing. It has the cumulative effect of meaning you’re never quite sure where a piece of speech ends and the narrative, or a character’s thoughts, begin.

—Three, Mr Deasy said, turning his little savingsbox about in his hand. These are handy things to have. See. This is for sovereigns. This is for shillings. Sixpences, halfcrowns. And here crowns. See.

3. No hyphens

Just as he disliked speech marks, so Joyce early on decided to dispense with hyphens and just to run two hyphenated words together. ‘A Portrait’ is full of examples like illfated, selfrestraint, rosesoft and hundreds more. And so it is here, as indicated by the novel’s famous opening sentences:

Stately, plump Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed. A yellow dressinggown, ungirdled, was sustained gently behind him on the mild morning air.

Innocent though this foible first appears, like dispensing with speech marks it is the first stirrings of the disintegration of language the book is going to deploy on a massive scale. For just as dispensing with speech marks makes it increasingly hard to know where direct speech ends and free indirect speech (i.e. the character’s own thoughts) begins; so dispensing with hyphens where they ought to go marks the start of start of not knowing where one word ends and another begins; in practice, it marks the start of Joyce’s running words together in original and increasingly inventive ways.

It starts with dropping hyphens in a phrase like:

He passed an arm through the armstrap and looked seriously from the open carriagewindow at the lowered blinds of the avenue.'(chapter 6).

But then it moves on to sticking together words which should never be joined to create new words:

… an old woman peeping. Nose whiteflattened against the pane

You can see in this example how he realises he’s stumbled across a new piece of grammar, the portmanteau noun, and as the novel progresses, the technique of jamming 2, 3 or more words together becomes more outrageous. So as Stephen walks by the sea in chapter 3, he fancifully imagines everyone in the world linked back to their mothers via a ghostly umbilical cord:

The cords of all link back, strandentwining cable of all flesh…

And then drops the first of his made-up, portmanteau words, imagining the early Christian heretic Arius:

Warring his life long upon the contransmagnificandjewbangtantiality.

After all, if you can glue two words directly together, why not three or four or five words? This is a taste of things to come…

3. Learnèd allusions

We could be here all week describing this one but the basic idea is simple. Joyce was hyper well-read and developed the habit in ‘A Portrait’ of dropping allusions to his learning into the narrative bits of text. Quite regularly the supposed narrative in fact contains no narrative at all, just a tissue of allusions, as if giving you direct access to the flux of (super-literate) thoughts in the main protagonist, Stephen’s, head. So you have potentially three elements: 1) old-fashioned third-person narration; 2) speech without speech marks; 3) the protagonist’s thoughts reflected in indirect speech.

Example 1

The opening of chapter 2 demonstrates all three elements: both the abolition of speech marks, a brief appearance from a conventional narrator, then an abrupt jump into Stephen’s hyper-educated mind.

(1: no-speech-marks speech)
—You, Cochrane, what city sent for him?
—Tarentum, sir.
—Very good. Well?
—There was a battle, sir.
—Very good. Where?
(2: third-person narrative)
The boy’s blank face asked the blank window.
(3: straight into Stephen’s thoughts)
Fabled by the daughters of memory. And yet it was in some way if not as memory fabled it. A phrase, then, of impatience, thud of Blake’s wings of excess. I hear the ruin of all space, shattered glass and toppling masonry, and time one livid final flame. What’s left us then?

There has been no narrative lead-in or introduction, no text explaining that we are in a school classroom and Stephen is taking a lesson. Only from the dialogue can we deduce this is what is happening and that it is a lesson about ancient history. ‘The boy’s blank face asked the blank window’ is a neat way of describing the poor schoolboy’s blank ignorance of Stephen’s question, but look what happens next.

We are thrown straight into Stephen’s ‘stream of consciousness’. I admit I had to stop and puzzle this out and have only got parts of it. The two sentences using ‘fabled’ I think reflect Stephen thinking that the battle referred to has gone down in history and yet, he reflects, was probably not as ‘memory’ tells fables about it.

What battle? He will go on to quote the Roman General Pyrrhus who won a battle in 279 BC where the Romans losses were so bad he is supposed to have said: ‘Another victory like that and we are done for.’ This is where we get our phrase ‘A Pyrrhic victory’ from. Stephen is (I think) reflecting that this phrase expressed not so much the general’s despair as his ‘impatience’.

I know the poet William Blake wrote in praise of excess: in his ‘Proverbs of Hell’ he wrote that ‘The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.’ Maybe Stephen is conflating the disastrous outcome of the Roman battle, its excessiveness, with the ‘wisdom’ contained in the general’s phrase which led to it becoming a proverb.

As to the next bit, ‘I hear the ruin of all space, shattered glass and toppling masonry, and time one livid final flame’ I don’t think this is particularly tied to Pyrrhus or this history lesson, although I know it is a phrase which will be repeated throughout the novel at various moments. So it is more like an early appearance of an idée fixe of Stephen’s and, if we consider ‘Ulysses’ as a work of art, it is like a motif which is being introduced early on so that it can be repeated with variations later on.

There’s probably more going on here than I’ve indicated and I might have got some of this wrong, but you see how it works: just elements – bits of dialogue which are not at all clearly demarcated, minimal amount of narrative explanation, then chunks of Stephen’s internal monologue which is ferociously learned and allusive – are already combining to make it a tricky read.

Don’t panic

As a bookish person, who’s read a lot of the same books as Joyce, I get some of his references and/or I’ve taken the trouble to look (some of) them up – but there is one key principle to bear in mind here, which is: Don’t be afraid.

Tens of thousands of academics have spent their entire lives elucidating ‘Ulysses’ and nobody has got all the allusions buried in it. It doesn’t matter. If you like puzzles, you can stop at each paragraph and look up the allusions. Or you can read the novel with a page-by-page guide (online or hard copy) open beside it to explain them. (If you have the patience, that’s probably the way to get the most out of reading ‘Ulysses’.)

As Canadian academic Hugh Kenner puts it, the book’s innumerable correspondences and patterns ‘adds fun to our endless exploration of this book’ – if, that is, endless exploration of a vast tissue of learnèd references and internal echoes is your idea of fun.

But if you’re not that kind of person, don’t worry. Read at the book, forge on through it, and let its unusual methods creep up on you. At various points you’ll recognise the same quotes or allusions cropping up and begin to get a feel for them, how they recur and give structure to the text, like motifs returning in a long piece of music. As in the ‘Cantos’ of Ezra Pound you don’t even have to understand what they mean (quotes from foreign languages, for example) for their repetition to start to have a haunting and evocative effect.

Also: it is as well to be clear that Stephen is not a god, he is not the prophet of some challenging religion: he’s just a character in a book, and his character is that of a cleverclogs, a callow young man too clever by half. He’s read all the books in the world but has little or no life experience, and it shows. Therefore, to some extent his thoughts are probably intended to be offputtingly clever-clever.

Example 2

Here’s another example of the method. Stephen stays after class to help a poor schoolboy, Sargent, with his sums. But as he does so, his overworking, over-educated intellect reflects that the symbols used in algebra are Arab in origin, in fact the word ‘algebra’ is itself Arabic, and this prompts him to think of the two great medieval philosophers – Ibn Rushd (1126 to 1198) Latinized as Averroes, and Moses ben Maimon (died 1204), commonly known as Maimonides. This is at least part of what is going on in this passage:

Across the page the symbols moved in grave morrice, in the mummery of their letters, wearing quaint caps of squares and cubes. Give hands, traverse, bow to partner: so: imps of fancy of the Moors. Gone too from the world, Averroes and Moses Maimonides, dark men in mien and movement, flashing in their mocking mirrors the obscure soul of the world, a darkness shining in brightness which brightness could not comprehend.

The dance of symbols across the page is described as a ‘morrice’ which is an antique adjective for Moorish or Arab, but has echoes of Morris dancing, a connotation reinforced by the word mummery, which is an olde English word for acting. Both of them clearly refer to the algebraic symbols Stephen is trying to teach the boy Sargent about and which he fancifully envisions dancing hand in hand with each other, bowing to their partners and so on.

The second half of the paragraph is, as far as I can see, a poetic evocation of the effect of the medieval scholars’ writings, which was itself so complicated and full of learned allusions that Stephen envisions it as mirrors. Maybe the two wise men’s learning is referred to as a darkness because 1) they were both dark-skinned non-European men and 2) maybe Western Europe is the brightness and lightness in which their complex, dark-skinned wisdom made little impression. I’m not sure. Something like that…

Anyway, this kind of thing happens thousands and thousands of times throughout the book. It makes up most of the long the novel’s texture, so it helps if you yourself are bookish and like spotting allusions. But, as I keep emphasising, it’s not absolutely necessary to get every allusion to enjoy the book, in fact it’s probably impossible. It’s perfectly valid to read the whole thing without ‘getting’ any of the allusions because there is plenty of other stuff going on – the structure of the plot itself (as outlined above) but also tens of thousands of places where the prose is so unexpected and inventive that you can enjoy it on the surface, for it mysteriousness and multitudinous rhythms, as much as for this riddling Sudoku element.

The internet / AI changes everything

As I wrote the preceding paragraphs it began to dawn on me that nowadays, of course, the whole experience of reading, especially reading difficult or demanding books, has been transformed by the internet and not just the old internet but the shiny new world of artificial intelligence.

Nowadays if you’re puzzled by anything in ‘Ulysses’, from the overall structure to the tiniest word, you can ask an LLM like Chat GPT and chances are it will explain everything. For example, I was not understanding the scattered references to Bloom’s father in chapter 6 (Hades) and so I simply asked Chat GPT: ‘In James Joyce’s Ulysses, did Leopold Bloom’s father commit suicide?’ and Chat came right back with ‘Yes’ along with details such as the method (poison) and location (the Queen’s Hotel).

So there’s now the facility to look up everything – from the granular level of individual words, foreign quotes, odd phrases, through to the macro level of my Bloom query – on an AI (Chat, CoPilot, Gemini) and have answers delivered on a plate.

Whether this is an appropriate way to read the book, whether it short circuits the time and effort Joyce intended his readers to invest in it, whether it undermines the experience of slowly constructing your own version from the fragments you notice or understand, and replaces it with a fully explained, Sam Altman-friendly version, is open to debate. But there’s no denying AI’s help in immediately solving thousands of niggling details or impenetrable obscurities, for example: who is Hynes? What does ‘De mortuis nil nisi prius’ mean? Can I find a recording of ‘Those lovely seaside girls? (Yes – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4IpDMyox2Y).

After a while I began to rely on it more heavily because the broken-up prose and elliptical style of so many of the conversations often mean it’s very hard to figure out what’s going on, and even what people are saying to each other.

But academic books will remain useful…

Where books, even quite old guides to ‘Ulysses’, score over the internet, is that they will offer useful and interesting opinions and insights. Chat will 1) only answer the question you asked; it might answer it fully and give you more detail than you expected, but at the end of the day the answer is limited by how you phrase your initial question or ‘prompt’. And 2) it will only give you other people’s opinions, neatly summarised and tied up in a bow.

By contrast a book-length guide will tend to introduce you to ideas and interpretations you’d never thought of before. They let you share, and follow the logic behind, distinct and maybe idiosyncratic interpretations, by expert scholars. LLMs tend to repeat and confirm the biases or expectations you bring with you whereas (good) books open the mind to all kinds of new possibilities.

So AI has already revolutionised the process of reading difficult works of literature like ‘Ulysses’ (and many more). But good books of criticism or analysis or just good quality guides, will for the foreseeable future still have the advantage of opening your mind to new ideas. Which, back in the olden days, was often considered an element point of studying literature…


Credit

‘Ulysses’ by James Joyce was published by Shakespeare and Company in 1922.

Related links

Related reviews

Sargent: The Watercolours @ Dulwich Picture Gallery

This is the first UK show in nearly 100 years devoted to the watercolours of the Anglo-American artist, John Singer Sargent (1856 to 1925).

Sargent biography

Sargent was American, born to a successful Philadelphia eye surgeon, who quit his trade to live a peripatetic life travelling round the beauty spots of Europe, with wife and a growing brood of children. Sargent’s parents encouraged his artistic tendencies and supported his decision to train as an artist in Paris in the 1870s. Here he learned precise draughtsmanship and a sumptuous way with oils, though he was also attracted to the new fashion for painting in the open air which came to be called Impressionism.

In Paris Sargent painted a number of successful portraits before moving to London in the mid-1880s where he quickly established a lucrative practice as a portrait painter to the upper classes. Sargent produced some 900 oil paintings, many of them masterpieces of style and grace, as demonstrated by the recent awe-inspiring exhibition of John Singer Sargent portraits at the National Portrait Gallery.

But throughout his life he continued to paint watercolours for his own pleasure and, once his London practice was secure, from the 1890s onwards, took a regular extended summer holiday, travelling all over the most picturesque parts of Europe and painting painting painting wherever he went.

The Lady with the Umbrella (1911) by John Singer Sargent. Museu de Montserrat. Image © Dani Rovira

The Lady with the Umbrella (1911) by John Singer Sargent. Museu de Montserrat. Image © Dani Rovira

The exhibition

This beautiful exhibition brings together a selection of some 80 of the estimated 2,000 watercolours which Sargent produced. Away from the pressurised world of his London studio and expensive commissions, the watercolours depict a relaxed and sunny world of picturesque locations – Venice, the Alps – a world of colourful locals in Italy or Spain, and of leisure ladies lounging with parasols.

It is the world of wealthy, confident Yankee ex-pats depicted in the novels of Henry James and Edith Wharton, a gracious world untroubled by rumours of war, where the moneyed could travel easily and stylishly from hotel to hotel in Venice, Rome, Bologna, Corfu, maybe down into Spain, and, after a good breakfast, set out one’s easel, pin up the cartridge paper, moisten the brushes, adjust one’s straw hat, fix the brollies in place, and then start sketching with light confident pencil strokes before moving on to start building up washes of colour.

Sargent painting a watercolour in the Simplon Pass (c. 1910-11) Sargent Archive, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Sargent painting a watercolour in the Simplon Pass (c. 1910 to 1911) Sargent Archive, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Architecture

Many of the watercolours give the impression of being deliberately unfinished, accentuating their light and airy effect. In fact one of the four headings into which the exhibition is divided is ‘Fragments’, although it is intended to have a different meaning. The curators use it to draw attention to the way Sargent is deliberately experimental in the way he frames and focuses many of the watercolours, cropping the subject, viewing it from unusual angles. Sargent’s oil portraits had to be pretty conventional, showing the key parts of the body of the sitter in a well-defined and well-decorated space – take one of my favourites, the staggering Ena and Betty, Daughters of Asher and Mrs Wertheimer in Tate Britain.

By contrast, in many of the watercolours Sargent deliberately focuses on details, cropping and cutting off, zooming in on unexpected aspects. This is particularly true of the depiction of buildings which dominate the first few rooms. He is interested not in the whole thing but of significant details and aspects, which he renders luminous with his amazing technique.

Rome: An Architectural Study (c. 1906-7) by John Singer Sargent. Museums & Galleries, City of Bradford MDC

Rome: An Architectural Study (c. 1906 to 1907) by John Singer Sargent. Museums & Galleries, City of Bradford MDC

The curators point out the influence of photography which by the turn of the century had pioneered all kinds of ways of cropping and focusing. I love draughtsmanship and all lines, firm clear lines, so something in me warmed to all of the architectural paintings. Venice is the prime location for these, many of them ‘taken’ from low on the waterline, providing a gondola’s-eye view of the famous crumbling palazzos and churches. a) It’s a question of angle but b) also of the play of light on water.

Light on water is a perpetual challenge to a painter and water is a secret thread which connects many of the works here of ostensibly different subjects – portraits, landscapes, cityscapes and so on. There are lots of boats in harbours. Or streams in the mountains. Or lakes. His depiction of Palma harbour is an amazing attempt to capture the really dazzling, blinding white light of the Mediterranean midsummer noon, shimmering on the blue water.

Palma, Majorca (1908) by John Singer Sargent © Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge

Palma, Majorca (1908) by John Singer Sargent © Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge

Of the six rooms here one is devoted to the subject of ‘Cities’, but in fact of the 13 paintings in the room, 11 are of Venice. Venice Venice Venice. Light on water, on aging stone, the detail of columns and porticos, friezes and balustrades. There are several rather touristy paintings of gondoliers punting their boats along canals, the spume of the waves highlighted with white impasto.

But there are plenty more of buildings, stone catching the reflections of water, and a moment’s reflection suggests that Venice combined the two great subjects, very classical monumental architecture, and shimmering surfaces of water.

The Church of Santa Maria della Salute, Venice (c. 1904-9) by John Singer Sargent © Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon. Photo: Catarina Gomes Ferreira

The Church of Santa Maria della Salute, Venice (c. 1904 to 1909) by John Singer Sargent © Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, Lisbon. Photo: Catarina Gomes Ferreira

One of my favourites was this dazzling depiction of a grand baroque statue in Bologna: it demonstrates several characteristics – it is cropped (you can’t see either the top of the statue which apparently is a huge statue of Neptune, or the sides of the bowl) – it shows fascination with light on different surfaces, specifically the aged stone walling, the bronze statues and a slender line of acquamarine water – it is somehow both monumental and light and airy – and the casual pink washes give the sense of the background architecture with a wonderful casualness. It is often the bravura confidence of the backgrounds as much as anything which fills you with a sense of respect and awe at his ability.

The Fountain, Bologna (c. 1906) by John Singer Sargent. Private Collection

The Fountain, Bologna (c. 1906) by John Singer Sargent. Private Collection

Boats

Not everything is genius, however. I found the exhibition a mixed bag, with several startlingly brilliant images in each room, but also a fair amount of average or so-so works. Maybe this is because the standard of all of them is so high that you just accept it and quickly take it for granted.

In the earlier rooms I surprised myself by not liking so much his depictions of boats. I can’t quite put my finger on it but I think I want my lines to be firmer and straighter, to bring out the toughness of lines to be found in rigging, the geometric complexity and angularity. There were several showing ships in a dry dock and one of some mill machinery (The Mill, Arras), but, for me, they lacked the rigour of the modernism which was to take the world by storm a generation later, when art found a language for machinery in modernist painting and social realist photography. Sargent’s ships are too soft for me.

Italian sailing Vessels at Anchor (c. 1904-07) by John Singer Sargent © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford

Italian sailing Vessels at Anchor (c. 1904 to 1907) by John Singer Sargent © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford

Some of the scenes of classic tourist destinations had a touristy tweeness; they are the kind of painting you actually find on sale in the streets of Venice, being hawked by street vendors. Depicting sweet peaceful scenes but lacking any oomph.

Loggia, View at the Generalife (c. 1912) by John Singer Sargent. Aberdeen Art Gallery & Museums Collections

Loggia, View at the Generalife (c. 1912) by John Singer Sargent. Aberdeen Art Gallery & Museums Collections

Landscapes

I thought the landscapes were his weakest works. Sargent developed a routine summer itinerary from the late 1890s through to the start of the Great War: each vacation began with a spell in the Alps, then on to Venice, Rome, Bologna, maybe to Corfu. He visited Spain several times and even went on a Middle Eastern tour, as research for a historical mural he was painting back in the States. Everywhere he went, painting painting painting.

A Glacier Stream in the Alps (c. 1909-11) by John Singer Sargent. Laing Art Gallery, Newcastle-upon-Tyne/Bridgeman Images

A Glacier Stream in the Alps (c. 1909 to 1911) by John Singer Sargent. Laing Art Gallery, Newcastle-upon-Tyne/Bridgeman Images

If you Google ‘John Singer Sargent landscape‘ you can surf through hundreds of images, many of them stunning. But some of the ones on display here were, I thought, weak. The Glacier stream (above) highlights some of those weaknesses – the perspective seems out, none of the details, of rock or water, are very convincing, and the human figure is worse. It was just as well the show included some of the weaker works: it made you realise Sargent wasn’t a god, he had his off days like other people.

That said, one of the best works in the show was a quiet but absorbing study of stones by a stream. It may not look much reproduced on a screen, but the closer you looked the more uncannily brilliant it became, you could touch each individual rock, feel the soggy sand bordering the stream. The brown blotches of heather in the background seemed perfectly judged. If I had a million pounds, I’d buy this one.

Bed of a Torrent (c. 1904) by John Singer Sargent. Royal Watercolour Society, London. Image © Justin Piperger

Bed of a Torrent (c. 1904) by John Singer Sargent. Royal Watercolour Society, London. Image © Justin Piperger

People

The final room is devoted to watercolours with people in them and there is a wide variety of settings. There are Bedouins in Arabia, gondoliers in Venice, Spanish street singers (this latter I find rather disturbing).

Blind Musicians (1912) by John Singer Sargent. Aberdeen Art Gallery & Museums Collections

Blind Musicians (1912) by John Singer Sargent. Aberdeen Art Gallery & Museums Collections

There are ladies in billowing skirts lounging by streams, a kind of quintessence of ease and relaxation.

A Turkish Woman by a Stream (c. 1907) by John Singer Sargent © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

A Turkish Woman by a Stream (c. 1907) by John Singer Sargent © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

There’s a number of so-so studies of male nudes, smudgy faces and black loins. Again, if you Google ‘John Singer Sargent nudes‘ you can see scores of marvelous charcoal and pencil studies of males nudes online. The male nude watercolours on display here aren’t so good.

What did stand out for me was a trio of genius watercolours. One was of his sister, Emily. She was a painter in her own right. There’s a small display case of photos of the man himself, with friends, and of Emily and she looks a very starchy character, dressed in dense Victorian black. She travelled everywhere with a ‘companion’, a Miss Eliza Wedgwood, and there is a stunningly good watercolour depicting Emily painting, paintbrush in mouth, while spinsterish Miss Wedgwood looks off to the side. The character in Eliza’s face is wonderful; and the calm companionableness of the pair is like a novel in paint.

There are several depictions of soldiers. Sargent spent the early years of the Great War back in the States, but was recruited to become an official British war artist at the request of the Prime Minister himself. In the landscape room there are so-so depictions of ammunition dumps which don’t really have much to them, certainly none of the sketches compares to his studied masterpiece, Gassed (1919), they’re not meant to. But there are a couple of studies of soldiers from a Highland regiment, wearing kilts, at rest.

Highlanders Resting at the Front (1918) by John Singer Sargent © Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge

Highlanders Resting at the Front (1918) by John Singer Sargent © Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge

But the one I would like to own is this fantastic study of two soldiers pinching apples in an orchard. The light on the main figure’s helmet, and on the back of his jacket and top of his kilt, is to die for.

Last of this trio was a ravishing study of a man lying naked on a bed.

This is a stunningly relaxed and liberated, redolent of holidays anywhere hot, the big wooden bedsteads, the sharp tan lines on the body, the rumpled white sheets, the cigarette casually held. And, after I’d looked at it for a while, I came to admire the nose – the use of pink and cream to model the sheeny shiny nose of someone who’s been out in the sun, it’s just one of thousands of stunning details throughout the exhibition which Sargent’s amazing eye and staggering technique capture and record forever.

Conclusion

80 out of 2,000, that’s 4% of his total output of watercolours. A surf of the internet indicates the riches among the other 96%, but these are here, now, and available to view in the flesh in Dulwich.

Close up, you can see the texture of the cartridge paper, see the skimming pencil lines he sketched out first, capturing the essence of shapes, buildings, people, rocks – and then marvel at the confidence with which he applied colour washes and highlights to create, at their best, almost magical effects, stunningly evocative and atmospheric works.

A Street in Spain (c. 1880) by John Singer Sargent © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford

A Street in Spain (c. 1880) by John Singer Sargent © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford

The video


Related links

More Dulwich Picture Gallery reviews

Painting the Modern Garden: Monet to Matisse @ the Royal Academy

‘Using the work of Monet as a starting point, this landmark exhibition examines the role gardens played in the evolution of art from the early 1860s through to the 1920s’ and features ‘masterpieces by Renoir, Cezanne, Pissarro, Manet, Sargent, Kandinsky, Van Gogh, Matisse, Klimt and Klee.’

Gardens! Monet! As might be expected there was a massive queue to get into this huge Royal Academy blockbuster exhibition, and it was very busy inside, making it quite hard to see the paintings in some rooms.

The exhibition is in ten or so rooms, and its skeleton or backbone is a chronological survey of the flower and garden paintings of Claude Monet.

In the first room are early ‘realist’ works like Lady in the garden (below) from the 1870s, set among similar works by numerous contemporaries. Half-way through the show is a room explaining how in 1883 Monet started renting a large house at Giverny, 50 miles north-west of Paris, and began laying out his famous garden, going on to buy some adjoining land to create the famous water lily pond, complete with Japanese bridge, which he was to paint for the rest of his life.

Then the exhibition climaxes in two rooms devoted solely to Monet – the first showing 15 or so late works, before the final space which is devoted to bringing together three huge paintings of the waterlilies. These enormous works were always intended to form one massive super-painting but were separated and sold off at his death, and are brought together here for the first time in nearly a century.

Lady in the Garden (1867) by Claude Monet. The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg. Photo (c) The State Hermitage Museum. Photography: Vladimir Terebenin

Lady in the Garden (1867) by Claude Monet. The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg. Photo by Vladimir Terebenin

The rise of gardening

At the Guildhall Art Gallery recently, I was interested to read how the nineteenth century saw the rise of the ‘home’. For many people in the 1800s the house they lived in was also the site of their work, where they performed all sorts of labouring, spinning, the manufacture of small artefacts etc. By 1900 the separation of home and workplace was complete for most people, who went to offices or factories to work, with ‘the home’ now a place which increasing numbers of people prided themselves on decorating and adorning according to the latest fashions, a place to express their personality or flaunt their status, a book market catered to by an ever-growing range of books and magazines dedicated to suggesting the best fabrics and wallpapers and furniture and ‘look’. (The Ideal Home Show was founded in 1908.)

Something similar happened with gardening. In 1800 ‘gardens’ were what aristocrats in grand houses had or where peasants in cottages grew vegetables. By 1900 ‘gardening’ had become a popular middle-class activity, complete with handbooks, guides and magazines to advise on which plants and flowers to grow where, how to lay out a garden, what to sow to achieve ‘year-round colour’, and an ever-growing range of exotic plants and hybrids imported from abroad to provide intense and novel colours. (The Chelsea Flower Show was established in 1912).

Auguste Renoir - Monet Painting in His Garden at Argenteuil (1873) Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, Hartford, CT. Bequest of Anne Parrish Titzell. Photo (c) Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, Hartford, CT

Auguste Renoir – Monet Painting in His Garden at Argenteuil (1873) Photo © Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, Hartford, CT

Impressionism, insofar as it was ever a coherent movement, was about using the convenience of a broader range of oil paints newly available in easily portable tubes, and the newly-built railways lines around Paris, to take a day trip out to the suburbs and paint scenes of ‘real life’ in their actual setting. Naturally, part of this interest in the real life of the 1860s and 70s was the growing fashion for gardens, and this exhibition shows that many painters not only painted gardens – many, many paintings of gardens – but were often themselves enthusiastic gardeners.

Louis Comfort Tiffany (1911) by Joaquin Sorolla. On loan from the Hispanic Society of America, New York, NY. Photo (c) Courtesy of The Hispanic Society of America, New York

Louis Comfort Tiffany (1911) by Joaquin Sorolla. Photo © Courtesy of The Hispanic Society of America, New York

Average garden paintings

Thus, alongside the early Monets, the first rooms we walk through feature works by numerous other artists in the same plein air style – Pierre Bonnard, Jean-Édouard Vuillard, Édouard Manet, Camille Pissarro and Pierre-Auguste Renoir. There are three big rooms showing scores of paintings of gardens, garden paths, flowery borders, ladies with bonnets in chairs, and profusions of flowers, all in a hazy summery impressionist style. To be honest, not many really stood out. Lots were as bland or sketchy as, for example:

I liked:

Bad garden paintings

Among the many very average paintings here – it’s a massive show – some stood out as being actively bad, amateurish and shapeless, lacking life, definition, colour. Some of the real stinkers included:

  • Garden of le Relais and Seated Woman Reading by Jean-Édouard Vuillard
  • Weeping Willow by Monet Even the sainted Claude painted some horrible paintings, their palettes garish and pukey. There’s a lot of Monets here and not all of them are good.

This Bonnard is one of the images the RA has selected for reviewers to use, but I find it bland and lifeless. Does it convey the fierce heat of the south of France or the play of sunlight on leaves in a breeze? No.

Resting in the Garden (Sieste au jardin) (1914) by Pierre Bonnard. The National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design, Oslo. Photo (c) Nasjonalmuseet for kunst, arkitektur og design/The National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design / (c) ADAGP, Paris and DACS, London 2015

Resting in the Garden (Sieste au jardin) (1914) by Pierre Bonnard. The National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design, Oslo

Monet at Giverny

After wading through lots of so-so pictures, it’s a change of mood to enter the room devoted to Monet’s famous garden at Giverny. Several hundred books, thousands of articles, posters, mugs and posters and badges and tea towels have made these images of water lilies among the most famous in art. But to see them in the flesh is to be converted all over again to their strange magic.

By not depicting the edges of the pond, the surrounding trees, let alone the sky – by concentrating purely on the surface of the water, with its mysterious reflections punctuated by the clumps of free-floating lilies – Monet creates a hauntingly free space into which you feel yourself being ineluctably drawn. I was struck by how much purple and mauve and violet he used in his depictions of water which, in my experience, is rarely purple or mauve. By 1900 his pond paintings are more about composition and palette i.e. about the interaction between colours on the canvas, than the so-called ‘real world’. Images which are obviously about the ‘real world’, but just as clearly about pattern, shape, composition and colour. They are genuinely bewitching, and in a different league from everything else in the show.

Nympheas (Waterlilies) (1914-15) by Claude Monet. Portland Art Museum, Oregon. Museum Purchase: Helen Thurston Ayer Fund, 59.16. Photo (c) Portland Art Museum, Portland, Oregon

Nympheas (Waterlilies) (1914 to 1915) by Claude Monet. Portland Art Museum, Oregon. Museum

Monet garden dates

  • 1883 Monet rents the house at Giverny
  • 1890 Monet buys the house and starts designing the gardens
  • 1889 Monet admires the water-lily garden at the Paris Universal Exhibition
  • 1893 Monet buys a property next to the garden and diverts a stream to create a lily pond
  • He builds a bridge modelled on the Japanese prints he likes
  • 1899 Monet paints 12 paintings of the the bridge and water lilies beneath
  • 1909 Monet exhibits 48 water lily paintings

The greenhouse room

I was surprised to walk into a room dominated by glasshouse-, greenhouse- and hothouse-shaped display cases showing a selection of books, articles and magazines about gardening from across Europe in the late 19th century. This is a room for the true horticulturalists among the visitors. There were also photos of Monet in his garden, accounts of the instructions he gave the six (6!) gardeners he employed, notes on seeds to buy, species and varieties to select, planting dates and so on.

Interesting if you’re a real Monet-maniac, but for me the standout items in this room were the five or so Japanese prints by Hokusai and Hiroshige.

It was a shock to be transported for a moment to a completely different tradition. The clear, fine, black outlines and delicacy of colour and detail of these Japanese prints are as opposite as can be from the smudgy western impressionism and post-impressionism which this exhibition is foregrounding. They crystallised for me what I didn’t enjoy about many of the paintings earlier in the show – their vague mistiness, the depiction of flowers as great woolly expanses of undifferentiated colour – and helped explain the paintings I was drawn to – ones which showed some kind of clarity of line, like Caillebotte’s Nasturtiums, or:

I worked at Kew Gardens and occasionally write my own, very amateur flower blog (just a diary of wild flowers I try to identify when out and about). Years of looking at flowers and trying to distinguish, say, lesser burdock from greater burdock, or broad-leaved willowherb from short-fruited willowherb, have made me look very closely at the structure of plants, at the stems and leaf shapes and edges, at stamens and anthers; and have also given me a taste for the small, the shy and retiring native wild flowers of England (eg the tiny scarlet pimpernel).

Thus, as I wandered past scores and scores of soft-focus portrayals of great swathes of blossoms set vaguely amid stippled, sunny gardens, I found myself preferring the paintings where you could actually identify the species of flower being depicted, or alternatively where the blossoms were subtle and understated – and tending not to like the ones where the flora consisted of undifferentiated washes of colour or great sprawls of acid yellow and vivid red commercial hybrids, impossible to identify and difficult for a wildflower lover like me, to like.

Mention of Tissot made me think of other contemporary British artists and the show includes at least two works by John Singer Sergeant who, in between painting his lucrative society portraits, spent summers at the village of Broadway in the Cotswolds, painting flowers and gardens. The two samples here are not his best – for example, Garden Study of the Vicker’s Children (1884) – and they don’t, for some reason, include his super-famous garden masterpiece, Carnation, Lily, Lily, Rose (1886).

Modernist garden paintings

The exhibition puts the efforts of Monet and the other impressionists into the widest possible context, featuring generous selections of European contemporaries – those we know, like Wassily Kandinsky, Paul Klee and Edvard Munch – and those we’d never heard of, like Santiago Rusiñol, Joaquin Mir y Trinxet, Henri Le Sidanier, Henri Martin and the German impressionist, Max Liebermann.

  • Green Wall by Santiago Rusiñol – The four or five paintings by Rusiñol really stood out in this room, unusually ‘realist’ in detail but also for the orange dusk light which dominates them, very unlike the summery green of many of the other chocolate box images.
  • Glorieta de cipreses, Jardines de Aranjuez (1919) by Santiago Rusiñol
  • Steps, Gerberoy by Henri Le Sidanier

There were quite a few Libermanns and, although the wall labels point out how prolific he was, how famous in his day, and how devoted to the garden he created on the shore of Lake Wannsee in Berlin, I found them unfinished, undetailed, unsatisfying.

One room was devoted to the Fauves and other experimental, turn-of-the century art movements. I didn’t like the two Matisses on display: Rose-table (below) seemed to me just ugly, in composition and colour, and Palm Leaf, Tangier (1912) just looked unfinished but not in a good way.

The Rose Marble Table, Issy-les-Moulineaux, spring-summer (1917) by Henri Matisse. The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Mrs. Simon Guggenheim Fund, 1956 Photo (c) 2015. Digital image, The Museum of Modern Art, New York/Scala, Florence / (c) Succession H. Matisse/ DACS 2015

The Rose Marble Table, Issy-les-Moulineaux, spring-summer (1917) by Henri Matisse.
The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Photo © 2015. The Museum of Modern Art

But like the other rooms, it’s a fascinating selection of the good, the bad and the indifferent. Also in the category of ‘little known garden paintings by super-famous twentieth century artists’ were:

I liked the three little Klee paintings (he may be my favourite 20th century artist), and the way he turns everything into his own quirky type of linear composition. But, contrary to everything I had just told myself about liking understated and clearly defined flowers, I also really liked Kandinsky’s Murnau The Garden II (below). It was completely unlike almost everything else in the show, not trying to be gentle and sensitive, or an attempt at plein air painting, or particularly figurative, but a violent, vibrant exercise in primary colours and tones. I liked its virile confidence.

Murnau The Garden II (1910) by Wassily Kandinsky. Merzbacher Kunststiftung Photo (c) Merzbacher Kunststiftung

Murnau The Garden II (1910) by Wassily Kandinsky. Merzbacher Kunststiftung

The photo room

The biggest surprise of the show was entering a room which is full of garden tables and benches. It’s a rare opportunity in an exhibition of this size to be able to sit down and have a rest. There were four big wooden garden tables, each with a set of chairs, and bearing two or three copies of the exhibition catalogue to flip through.

The walls of this room were lined by extra-large (really large) black-and-white photos of many of the artists featured (Klee, Kandinsky, Bonnard etc), snapped in their respective gardens, the whole thing dominated by a big screen on the far wall showing three short clips from films of a) Monet at work, French fag hanging from his mouth, dressed in a white jacket, palette in hand and standing next to the famous lily pond b) Max Lieberman painting in his garden c) le Sidanier ditto.

Monet’s later years at Giverny

Immediately following the photo and film room you move into Monet’s final years.

He had been devastated by his wife’s death in 1911 and was also suffering from eye trouble, and so stopped painting for three years. Then, on the eve of the Great War, he took up his palette again and, when war came, bravely refused to leave even as the Germans advanced towards his house and garden and studio.

This penultimate room contains about a dozen paintings of the pond, lilies and trees from around the time of the War. What came over for me is how, by this stage, Monet had stopped really being an impressionist. Many of the paintings were painted from memory, inside the large studio he had built. Purple and violet tones predominate in the lily paintings, making the clumps of lilies float in a neutral non-space, an increasingly abstract arrangement of colours which have a genuinely hypnotic effect.

That’s not to say there aren’t some very poor works on offer, some crude heavy depictions of the Japanese bridge in a completely different palette from the gentle violets of the other paintings, hard to believe they’re by the same man.

But among half a dozen breath-taking works on show here, my favourite was the large weeping willow – probably because it is unfinished and I always love the idea of a work of art emerging from the raw canvas, of beauty struggling to free itself from chaos or banality – and because I like strong black marks and outlines, even if only sketchy, of the kind that can be seen here. The commentary points out that he did a series of weeping willow paintings date around 1918 which might express his feelings about the terrible catastrophe which had destroyed European civilisation. All the more poignant.

The agapanthus tryptich

The final room (in fact the Academy’s Wohl Central Hall) is devoted to the Agapanthus triptych, three enormous (7 feet by 14 feet) canvases Monet worked on from around 1915 to his death in 1926. The three separate pieces were sold off to different galleries and are rarely brought together, so this is a rare opportunity to see them reunited and to immerse yourself in Monet’s unique floating world.

Monet spoke and wrote a lot about his work, words which have been recombined into a thousand books, articles and t-shirt mottos: of all the words written about them, I liked the idea that these last works, enormous in scale and floating free of tradition, restraint, of all his previous work and from previous art, are Monet’s attempt to create harmony, balance, poise and beauty after the devastation of the Great War.

No matter how stupid and destructive humanity is, in the waterponds of the world the lilies will always blossom again.


Related links

More Royal Academy reviews

Sargent: Portraits of Artists and Friends @ National Portrait Gallery

John Singer Sargent (1856 to 1925) was the greatest portrait painter of his generation. This show brings together around 70 of his oil portraits, along with some late watercolours and a dozen or so striking charcoal drawings. Every room contains works of breath-taking brilliance.

Early days

This is Carolus-Duran, Sargent’s teacher in Paris. Sargent entered C-D’s atelier in 1874 and quickly emerged as the star pupil. This portrait is Sargent’s tribute and thanks to his teacher on ‘graduating’. C-D taught that every brushstroke must count. It is astonishingly vivid and alive, you can hear the rustle of his coat and expect him to start talking at any moment.

I noticed the ornate deployment of his hands in this early portrait and then was very aware of how the hands were painted in all the subsequent works.

Carolus-Duran by John Singer Sargent, 1879 © Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts, USA (photo by Michael Agee)

Carolus-Duran by John Singer Sargent, 1879 © Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts, USA (photo by Michael Agee)

Artistic circles

Born in Florence of expatriate American parents, Sargent was at home in the most distinguished artistic circles of Europe. While he trained as a painter in Paris in the 1870s, he forged friendships with leading artists of the day, including Rodin and Monet, but he had a host of other contacts which he cultivated assiduously throughout his career, a cross-section of which are represented here:

Dr Prozzi

This is an early one of Dr Prozzi, a Parisian doctor, aesthete and rumoured lover of numerous women. The incredibly sumptuous red and scarlets are from Titian and other Old Masters, but the casualness of the clothes (dressing gown and slippers) exude the confident informality of the bohemian circles Sargent was at home in.

Dr Pozzi at Home by John Singer Sargent, 1881 © The Armand Hammer Collection, Los Angeles

Dr Pozzi at Home by John Singer Sargent, 1881
© The Armand Hammer Collection, Los Angeles

Sargent and modern music

Sargent was not only a devotée of Wagner’s music (the last word in daring avant-gardeism in the 1870s and 1880s) but it is typical of him that paints the woman Wagner had an affair with as the composer was completing Parzifal, Judith Gautier, and typical of his circle that she herself was the daughter of the famous French poet, Théophile Gautier.

He admired the music of Gabriel Fauré but was also an active supporter, organising chamber concerts of his work and spreading the word among his networks of the rich and influential, as well as painting two portraits of the composer.

Stories

Almost every commission here has a fascinating story, shedding light on a complex web of contacts, friendships, artistic relations and influences at the highest level. Lily Millet, wife of the American artist Frank Millet, was at the centre of the community of artists and writers at Broadway in the English Cotswolds, about which we hear a lot in the commentary.

Mrs Frank Millet by John Singer Sargent, probably 1885–6 © Private collection

Mrs Frank Millet by John Singer Sargent, probably 1885–6
© Private collection

This portrait epitomises several Sargent traits:

  • the face is vividly captured and does the hardest thing in art, capturing the precise physiognomy of a human being
  • the clothes, the fabrics, the silks and muslins are deliciously and richly suggested
  • it is unfinished – the body of the dress dissolves into raw brushtrokes and the background is suggested, unfinished, undetailed, so that the body appears from a hazy background and the face emerges in dramatic clarity from the vague dress, like the sudden re-emergence of the vivid melody after the development section of a symphonic movement

Sargent and Van Dyck

From the start he painted eye-popping portraits with a sureness of technique and suavity of subject matter which immediately got him comparisons with Van Dyck, one of the great portraitists of all time. This is not quite right, as Van Dyck’s paintings have a technical completeness and authority which matches the hauteur of his aristocratic and royal sitters, whereas Sargent was very influenced by the artistic currents of his day so that many of his works have much looser brushwork, are sometimes incomplete, giving an often bohemian sense of dash and brio.

Though he painted portraits of astonishing brilliance throughout his career, in this show possibly the first room is the best, with the stunning early portraits of:

Below is Portraits de MEP et de Mlle LP (1881). The most immediate impression is of the staring seriousness of the little girl – then I noticed the splayedness of the hands, as in many other Sargent portraits – and the detailing of the pale brown rug is stunning – but no reproduction can convey the amazing sumptuousness of the young girl’s white silk dress which shimmers out of the frame at you, as if you could reach out and touch it.

Édouard and Marie-Louise Pailleron by John Singer Sargent, 1881 © Des Moines Art Center, Des Moines, Iowa

Édouard and Marie-Louise Pailleron by John Singer Sargent, 1881
© Des Moines Art Center, Des Moines, Iowa

Five periods

These early works established his reputation at the French Salon, at the British Royal Academy, from which – despite a few knocks and rejections – he was never really removed. The show is in eight rooms divided into periods:

  1. Paris 1874 to 1885
  2. Broadway 1885 to 1889, not in New York, the village in the Cotswolds
  3. Boston and New York 1888 to 1912
  4. London 1889 to 1913
  5. Europe 1899 to 1914

The influence of Impressionism

Throughout his life Sargent was friendly with the Impressionists, though both they and he were clear he wasn’t one of them. He was very aware of their technical innovations, namely painting en plein air, and many of the works here represent his repeated attempts to do the Impressionist thing with, I think, mixed results.

Group with Parasols by John Singer Sargent, c.1904–5 ©Private collection

Group with Parasols by John Singer Sargent, c.1904–5
©Private collection

They are brilliant in their way, but pale next to the rich fullness of his masterpieces:

Ellen Terry

And the super-famous full-length portrait of the late Victorian actress Ellen Terry as Lady MacBeth. Again, no reproduction can convey the sense of scale and sumptuousness of the actual painting itself. At its greatest there is something magical about the shimmer of surface and depth of illusion which oil painting can create.

Ellen Terry as Lady Macbeth by John Singer Sargent, 1889 © Tate, London

Ellen Terry as Lady Macbeth by John Singer Sargent, 1889
© Tate, London

Sargent looked disconcertingly like King George V, with a healthy ‘full set’ of beard and moustache. He did a number of self-portraits but they aren’t revealing. He was a watcher of others, not a revealer of himself.

Later oils and watercolours

In 1907, at the age of fifty-one, Sargent officially closed his studio and was able to retire from the hard work of commissioned portrait-painting which he found quite a strain. Throughout his life he had painted informal oils for himself, often of friends – as many of the works in the show attest – and in the last two decades of his life he was able to travel more, painting more relaxed scenes in picturesque locations – in both oil and watercolour – and especially of Venice, the Alps or at villas around Italy, often depicting his circle of artist friends.

A good example is The Fountain, Villa Torlonia, Frascati, Italy from 1907 ,which the NPG has used as the poster for the show. It epitomises the rougher, more ‘impressionist’, brush style he used for these personal works. The active stance of the woman – the artist Jane de Glehn – compared with the idle stance of her husband, Wilfrid, is indicative of the ‘liberated’ bohemian air of Sargent’s artistic circle.

The Fountain, Villa Torlonia, Frascati, Italy by John Singer Sargent, 1907. Friends of American Art Collection, 1914.57 © Art Institute of Chicago

The Fountain, Villa Torlonia, Frascati, Italy by John Singer
Sargent, 1907. Friends of American Art Collection, 1914.57 © Art
Institute of Chicago

Absent masterpieces

And there are quite a few of his greatest hits which aren’t here, making the show not quite definitive, but with Sargent having produced so much, and it being scattered very widely among private collections, how could it be?

But still – this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see so many Sargents together in one place. Go and marvel.


Related links

More National Portrait Gallery reviews