Dennis Morris: Music + Life @ the Photographers’ Gallery

This is a fabulous exhibition by a pioneer Black British photographer who started out recording the Windrush generation of Black immigrants, branched out into photojournalism about Asians in Southall and documentary photography of white life in the shabby 1970s, before having a fabulous stroke of luck in getting permission to photograph Bob Marley on his 1973 UK tour, snapping iconic photos which turned him into one of rock’s most successful photographers, a reggae connection which gave him an entrée into the circle of the Sex Pistols whose agenda-setting tours he documented, before going on to produce iconic images of numerous other bands and performers throughout the 1980s and ’90s.

It’s a delight and a pleasure because the subject matter (the rock, pop, punk and reggae music of my youth) is so easy to process and enjoy – and because Morris is such a brilliant photographer, producer of numerous iconic photos for press, magazine and record covers.

Growing Up Black

Part of the Windrush generation, Morris and his mother immigrated from Jamaica to Britain in the early 1960s. He was given his first camera at the age of 8 and became around his East End neighbourhood as Mad Dennis, due to his preference for photography over football. After inadvertently stumbling across a demonstration by the PLO one Sunday, savvy young Dennis snapped the march then took his photos to a photo agency on Fleet Street which promptly sold it to the Daily Mirror for £16. He was just 11 years old!

He had made pocket money by taking photos of christenings and birthday parties but now he realised it could pay. He rigged up a studio in his flat (which consisted of hanging a sheet up on the wall) and started doing portraits of the community. There are ten or so of these really early portraits here and they show both his commitment but juvenile technique – subjects are a bit out of focus or not properly framed.

But he was soon branching out into street photography in the style of the great photographers he read about in photography magazines, men like Robert Capa, Henri Cartier-Bresson and Don McCullin.

This evolved into the project titled ‘Growing Up Black’, which includes Black immigrants in a variety of activities, shopping, cooking, kids on the street, dressing up, singing in a choir, licking a lolly – as well as the underground sound system culture strongly connected with reggae, and shots of the Black House in north London run by the controversial Michael X as a hostel for disaffected Black youth.

Count Shelley Sound System, 1970s by Dennis Morris © Dennis Morris

Southall

Having mastered the art of gaining people’s trust in his own community, Morris made the bold decision to investigate the Asian community in Southall, west London. He succeeded spectacularly, the trust he won and the access he gained and the candour and intimacy of the shots he took of Asian life are very powerful.

Man with his two daughters and his most prized possession, Southall, 1976 by Dennis Morris © Dennis Morris

The curators, as is their wont, tend to focus on the ethnicity and multiculturalism of the photos, but what gets me is the poverty and the shabbiness of so many people’s lives. If you didn’t live through the 1970s you can’t really know how rundown and derelict everything felt, and how people put up with extremely low standards of accommodation, hygiene, food and culture. Morris’s photos of Black, Asian and White life all bring back the sights and smells and sounds and the terrible narrowness of life at that time.

The curators single out the way Morris was impressed by the ‘resilience’ of Asian kids who came home from school and went straight to work in their parents’ shops. Well, I did the same. I still remember the Great Day when the register in my parents’ shop where you had to push down the money keys, as on a big clunky typewriter, to make big price labels appear behind the glass screen at the top, was replaced by a zippy new electric till where you lightly tapped the keys and the sums were shown on a digital display. Revolutionary!

This Happy Breed

Having done Black and Asian life, Morris turned his camera on the indigenous white population. If Blacks and Asians can talk about their communities and their people, then this section is about my people, lower middle class and working class white people. Morris would roam the streets with his camera, looking for subjects. A favourite destination was Hyde Park Corner with its guaranteed cohort of eccentrics.

The exhibition includes wonderfully candid shots of barbers with all their old paraphernalia and cheap scents, greengrocers filled with crates of fresh fruit and veg – I can smell the aromas of wilting cabbage and over-ripe tomatoes, I can hear the matey laughter of the shopkeeper. These are wonderfully vivid, alive, varied and beautifully shot images.

There’s a Darby and Joan club, football supporters, Pearly Kings, a gurning competition (if anyone remembers those) and that old stalwart, that reliable old subject which always shows the English at their embarrassing worst, the seaside.

On a school trip to Woolacombe in 1974, Morris took this photo of two of his teachers and won the prize in his school’s photo competition © Dennis Morris

The title is obviously a reference to the 1939 play of the same name by Noel Coward which was made into a classic British movie. As it happens I’ve read and reviewed it recently, and here’s the link if you want to find out more.

Enter Bob Marley

In a much-told story, Morris read that his reggae hero Bob Marley was going to play some gigs at the Speakeasy club on Margaret Street in Soho and so, aged just 14, he bunked off school and hung around outside the club all day hoping to meet his hero. And he did, Marley was taken by the keen young snapper and let him into the club and to take photos of the band and the performance.

Thus began a lifelong friendship and collaboration with Marley right up to the singer’s untimely death in 1981. Of their lifelong partnership, he said ‘It was much more than just taking the photos. It was a teaching, a learning, a growing’ and this comes over in the sheer number of photos on display here.

Here’s a wall of shots showing the great man lying in bed, playing ping-pong, sitting under a tree in his garden, looking over his shoulder in a taxi, and generally exuding effortless class and charisma. In Morris’s words, ‘he just radiated grace.’

A wall of Bob Marley photos in Dennis Morris at the Photographers’ Gallery (photo by the author)

Pre-eminent are three big colour prints of the shots he took at the famous 1975 concert at the Lyceum Theatre in London, one of which was used for the cover of the live album.

Some of the Bob Marley room showing colour stills from the legendary 1977 Rainbow gig, on the wall, with a display case of New Musical Express and Melody Maker covers featuring shots by Morris, in Dennis Morris at the Photographers’ Gallery (photo by the author)

What really comes over is how extravagantly photogenic Marley was, how handsome and cool and charismatic, whatever his mood, in whatever pose.

It was the 1975 Lyceum shots which made Morris’s career. In 1973 he was little known but by 1975 he was emerging as a superstar and also a figurehead for an entire genre of music. Lots of photographers went but only Morris had the access due to his established friendship. He got the best shots and sold them to all the cool mages, the New Musical Express, Melody Maker, and Time Out. From now on he was able to sell his photos not only of Marley but of a new generation of London musicians just hitting the street.

The Sex Pistols

After the Sex Pistols signed to Virgin Records in May 1977, Johnny Rotten approached Morris personally and asked him to photograph them. Morris spent the next year with the Pistols, documenting their onstage and offstage antics in depth, taking hundreds of classic shots of the band. The only photographer to put the Sex Pistols fully at ease in front of the lens, Dennis’ work with the band established, not only their public image, but also Dennis’ position as one of the most exciting and striking music photographers in the country. In the wall of Pistols, below, note especially:

  • second column, second down – the classic shot of guitarist Steve Jones (which he used as the cover of his autobiography)
  • fourth column, top – Johnny Rotten in classic pose
  • fourth column, second down – the three front men in classic pose

The wall of Sex Pistols photos in Dennis Morris at the Photographers’ Gallery (photo by the author)

Another wall has a set of images of Sid Vicious given the Andy Warhol-Marilyn Monroe silk screen treatment.

Sid Vicious given the Marilyn silk screen treatment in Dennis Morris at the Photographers’ Gallery (photo by the author)

Here’s a reminder of what we’re talking about:

Public Image Ltd

In 1978, as the Pistols broke up, Virgin boss Richard Branson invited Morris to accompany him on a talent-spotting trip to Jamaica and Morris persuaded Virgin that Rotten (now reverting to his given name of John Lydon) should accompany them. Quite apart from the reggae talent that Morris helped bring to Virgin’s attention, the reggae sound of performers like Lee Perry, the Abyssinians, Big Youth and U Roy made a deep impression on Lydon as he was assembling his post-punk band, Public Image Limited. PiL were to pioneer a distinctive sound mixing the experimental Krautrock-inspired guitar of Keith Levene with the heavy dub bass of Jah Wobble. The more you listen, the more fascinating Levene’s unconventional guitar patterns become.

Morris played a key role in not just photographing the new band, in a deliberately post-punk, anti-punk style – but crafting their public image. He created the PiL logo and designed the innovative Metal Box album packaging – as documented in a wall of images and display case here.

The Public Image Limited wall, showing stylised portraits of (top left to right) guitarist Keith Levene, drummer Jim Walker, and John Lydon looking like a choirboy – with at the far right an early version of the band’s logo: in the display case are more photos and a copy of the metal box LP – all in Dennis Morris at the Photographers’ Gallery (photo by the author)

After punk

There’s more, lots more. The story of how Morris got the image for the cover of Marianne Faithfull’s 1979 solo album, Broken English.

This was part of his work as art director of Island Records which saw him design album covers for Linton Kwesi Johnson, Marianne, Marley and many others. Downstairs is a gallery of his LP covers, as well as other rock memorabilia depicting his photos or designs (t-shirts, lighters, cigarette papers etc).

Display of LP album covers which Morris contributed images and design for, in Dennis Morris at the Photographers’ Gallery (photo by the author)

During this period Morris replaced Don Letts as vocalist of Basement 5, a reggae punk fusion band. He created their logo, image, photography and graphics and gained a recording contract with Island Records.

Subsequently he did photo shoots with a series of icons: from 1970s rock artists like Patti Smith and Grace Jones, through Prince’s heyday in the 1980s and on into the 1990s, the era of the Stone Roses, Oasis, Primal Scream and much more.

At the same time he maintained his close connection with reggae artists and the exhibition features a slideshow projected on a wall of a pantheon of reggae stars including The Gladiators, the Mighty Diamonds and many more.

And he promoted Black British performers such as Steel Pulse, Aswad, often photographing them and taking a hand in designing and styling their images and record artwork. It was Morris who persuaded Island records to sign the great Linton Kwesi Johnson, for which act alone he deserves a medal.

Summary

What range, from the poor streets of Hackney and Southall, to hobnobbing with music royalty, from the Sex Pistols to Steel Pulse, from white punk rock to the blackest of hard-core reggae, and then on to a galaxy of top pop stars. But it’s maybe those early shots, from Hackney, Southall and white working class lives from the 1970s, which linger longest in the memory…

The Trot, Southall Horse Market from This Happy Breed © Dennis Morris


Related links

Related reviews

Life as We Have Known It: The Voices of Working-Class Women edited by Margaret Llewelyn Davies (1931)

It is impossible to say how much I owe the Guild.
(Mrs Lizzie Layton, page 54)

‘Life as We Have Known It’ is a collection of first-hand accounts of the lives of working class women from the later nineteenth century through the early decades of the twentieth. Many of them escaped poverty or were inspired to write, by membership of the Women’s Co-Operative Guild, and the accounts were collated and edited into a collection by the Guild’s secretary, Margaret Llewelyn Davies. Despite the Victorian provenance of many of the accounts the book wasn’t published until as late as 1931. It made a big splash at a time when the study of social history was just starting to be a thing, typified by the foundation of the Mass Observation movement in 1937.

The Women’s Co-Operative Guild

The co-operative movement

In the first half of the nineteenth century workers formed co-operative groups in many countries across Europe in response to the Industrial Revolution. Wherever it occurred, the Revolution created a large industrial proletariat which the factory and business-owning classes brutally exploited.

A central activity of these various co-operative movements was to band together to open their own stores selling good quality groceries. In 1844 10 weavers and 20 other workers in Rochdale set up the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers and opened a store which became well-known for selling good quality food and groceries at prices their working class customers could afford. In the process they developed the so-called Rochdale Principles which went on to become widely copied and famous. Over the following decades in Britain, larger co-operatives were formed from the merger of many independent retail societies. In 1863 the North of England Co-operative Society was launched by 300 individual co-ops across Yorkshire and Lancashire. By 1872, it had become known as the Co-operative Wholesale Society (CWS) and so on.

Women and the co-operative movement

Meanwhile, something had been missing from all this well-intentioned activity, namely women. Women worked side by side men in factories and, of course, ran most households, did most of the shopping, cooking, cleaning and child-rearing, and yet they not only had no representation in society at large, could not vote or take part in civic life – they didn’t even have a role within the Co-operative Movement.

So in 1883 a handful of women activists set up the Women’s Co-Operative Guild to fill the gap. There was no shortage of Victorian charities run by high-minded middle-class women who wanted to do something to the working class – but right from the start, the Guild was about working class women doing it for themselves.

The role of Margaret Llewellyn Davies

In 1889, the young Margaret Llewellyn Davies (born in 1861 and so 28 years old) took over as President of the Guild. She began implementing an ambitious agenda to broaden and expand the organisation. She encouraged working women around the country to form local groups, to organise and attend regional and national congresses, to educate themselves about broader political issues such as higher wages, shorter working hours, better working conditions, health and safety and, of course, the campaign to give women the vote. Davies was to serve as the Guild’s general secretary for over 30 years, until 1921. Her personal views, a combination of socialism and feminism, shaped the Guild’s direction.

In 1915, 16 years into the job, Davies edited a book titled Maternity: Letters from Working Women. it was based on letters from Guild members describing their experiences of pregnancy, childbirth and child rearing and was an eye-opening example of social history.

And now we finally come to the book under review because 16 years later, in 1931, Davies published a sister book, Life as We Have Known It: The Voices of Working-Class Women. By this point the Guild had 1,400 branches and 67,000 members for whom it had opened doors and given them undreamed of opportunities.

Life as We Have Known It

It’s a lot shorter than its reputation suggests, at just 170 pages of big type, and that’s with various bits of editorial matter added onto the original text, such as the introduction by Virginia Woolf, a note on the Women’s Co-operative Guild by Margaret Davies, and an afterword by the publishers of the 1977 Virago edition.

From everything I’d read about it I was expecting it to be mammoth and encyclopedic along the lines of Henry Mayhew’s epic ‘London Labour and the London Poor’. Instead it contains only six substantial accounts:

  1. Memories of Seventy Years by Mrs Layton (60 pages)
  2. A Plate-Layer’s Wife by Mrs Wrigley (12 pages)
  3. In A Mining Village by Mrs F.H. Smith (7 pages)
  4. A Guild Office Clerk contributed by the Editor (8 pages)
  5. A Felt Hat Worker by Mrs Scott J.P. (24 pages)
  6. A Public-Spirited Rebel by Mrs Yearn (8 pages)

These together make up 120 just pages.

There follow several slightly eccentric appendices. The most powerful is a brutal account of working as child slave labour in East Anglia by a Mrs Burrows. This is followed, a little oddly, about 20 extracts from letters from Guildswomen all round Britain which address the topic of what books they like reading and have read recently, with the result that many of them are just glorified lists of popular books of the first decades of the twentieth century, mildly interesting but not a patch on the searing accounts from the first part of the book.

1. Memories of Seventy Years by Mrs Layton (60 pages)

This is by far the longest memoir and is so long it has to be divided into chapters.

1. Childhood in Bethnal Green

Elizabeth ‘Lizzie’ was born in Bethnal Green 1855, one of 14 children, so that her mother was permanently pregnant or suckling or both. In those days Bethnal Green was a village and they had a big garden in which they kept pigs and ducks and chickens. When she was 6 they moved to a bigger house but in a more cramped neighbourhood with little outside space. A neighbouring dairyman kept cows whose manure stank out the house. There was no sanitation or running water, with human waste piled close to water butts with the result that there were recurring outbreaks of cholera. At the age of 12 her older sister went into service. One day a week all the babies were washed with the girls kept back from school to help. They used to hire a pram for a penny to take the babies to Victoria Park for a treat. One day she and her sister were naughty and went on an outing, walking, with one of the babies, to Epping Forest. Her parents were worried sick and relieved when they reappeared.

Her father was an educated man with a job in government service, who dressed smartly and was musical. He played at the coronation of Queen Victoria (1837). He taught himself tailoring to supplement his income, and grew all their own vegetables. Lizzie is never among the poorest of the poor.

As the family grew her mother had to take on extra work and became continually exhausted. A doctor prescribed spirits and so little Lizzie saved up pennies earned minding babies and running errands and bought treats of gin for her mother. This probably didn’t help and her mum went downhill and died when she was still a girl.

A development of bigger grander houses is built nearby. Some of the girls become ‘step girls’ who can earn up to 9d a Saturday for cleaning all the steps. The Sisters of Mercy are attached to a nearby church and have a spooky reputation but they give Lizzie and her sister food when they go knocking on their door.

The Sisters visit a house they’ve heard is poorly and discover a mother and two sisters with smallpox. In that neighbourhood people made matchboxes at home and the matchboxes were being made in the same room as the smallpox patients then taken out onto the streets to be sold and distributed.

As London expands fine old houses get converted into tenements or even into factories. Women and girls have to beg for their pennies pay while in the grand house the family of the owners live off roast joints.

Little Lizzie is ill, the doctor recommends a change of air and so she goes and stays with her aunt in the countryside. She loves the countryside and her first stay lasts five weeks. Her uncle is a farm bailiff. He lets her ride on the cows or on the cart piled with fresh fodder for the cows. She is scared of the bees but loves the sunsets she sees from the windows of the cottage.

2. Ten years in domestic service

When she’s 10 she starts earning a living as a baby minder, interspersed with attending one of Lord Shaftesbury’s Ragged Schools. The baby belongs to a couple who keep a small shop and pawn shop, so Lizzie sees the misery of families so poor they have to pawn their children’s clothes to pay for food.

Age 13, goes to Hampstead in service for a year. She is kept inside the house all week except for Sunday morning excursions to church. She has confirmation classes and is confirmed by the Bishop of London.

Age 15 went to be a maternity nurse in Kentish Town, where a young mother of 3 children and a baby died or puerperal fever. She gets 3 shillings a week which she ekes out by repairing her own clothes. One evening a gentleman offered her ten shillings to have sex with him and she was tempted but refused. the two oldest children are taught to read and write at home and Lizzie picks up some of this by watching. She develops an appetite for instalments of sensational stories in magazines lent her by the servant next door, but had to read these in secret.

Age 17 she quits the job when the family try to make her take the children on the only spare hours she gets to herself, on Sunday afternoons. She gets a new post with a lady and her daughter. This is a good gig as they happily let her read and the grown-up daughter even corrects her reading and writing. She has days off to go walking with her father, which she loved, and develops a cult of poring over maps and railway timetables and dreaming of travelling to farflung places such as Manchester!

She gets time off to assist at the lying-in of her sister and is horrified by the realities of childbirth and the harsh treatment of new mothers (not allowed to wash afterwards and fed on water gruel and toast).

Age 18, she can afford to dress well and starts having male friends. Men start proposing marriage to her. She happens to attend a wedding and is horrified at the vows a woman has to make and give up her freedom. Nonetheless she becomes engaged and the engagement lasts two years.

She accompanies her kind family for an extended stay at Hastings. The mother invites her fiancé to stay but he makes an improper suggestion to Lizzie and follows it up by trying to force her. She fights him off but from that point despises him. When they move back to London, this man keeps trying to see her until eventually she gives up her post and moves to Balham in south London to try and escape him.

3. Married life, Midwifery, Co-operation

She meets a man at a Mission Hall, Mr Layton. By now she is interested in social issues. They are engaged for three years and then, in 1882 Lizzie marries, aged 26. On the eve of the wedding the piano-making firm her fiancé works for goes bankrupt and he is thrown out of work.

After slogging round for work her husband gets a regular job as a carriage cleaner for a railway, working 12 hours a night, 6 days a week for 19 shillings i.e. 95p.

September 1883 first child. It is a forceps delivery with no anaesthetic. Imagine! She is all alone to look after the child. Three months later husband lost his job. A friend lodging in the same house tells him about a job working at St Pancras loading and unloading for 17 shillings a week. What with the rent and the cost of commuting to work, there isn’t much left over and Lizzie often goes hungry. The long hours make husband sick and he is routinely off sick for months at a time.

She takes in washing which she can only do when the baby is asleep and often only gets two hours sleep herself. Three years later a second child but it dies after three months from lack of nourishment and she says she might have died, too.

Her husband joins the Railwaymen’s trade union. She comes to understand the importance of trade unions for protecting working people A co-operative store opens 2 miles away and Mrs L becomes a member. An Education committee is set up and through them a branch of the Women’s Co-operative Guild. She loves that it’s not a question of middle class women coming and lecturing but working class women presenting and explaining and being open to questions.

She saw Margaret Llewelyn Davies speak. She was only a member for ten months before she was elected president. She nervously attends meetings of the general Co-Op Management Committee. She is invited to give lectures on domestic economy to guilds around London. She begins to speak in the meetings about political issues.

Her husband gets a promotion, they move to Cricklewood, Lizzie takes up nursing instead of taking in washing and ironing. She is encouraged by doctors but can’t possibly afford the fees for a midwifery course which start at £30. So she remains a maternity nurse but one who reads and studies and is show techniques by supportive doctors.

She handles so many cases that the friendliest doctor says he’d be confident her handling deliveries by herself, only contacting him if there are problems. Eventually she saves up the £30 and takes the exam, which she found intimidating, especially the five-minute interview, but fails. In the event the landmark Midwives Act of 1902 allowed her to trade on her extensive practical experience to become fully qualified.

Her local Guild fails but she joins a new one in Willesden where she is soon elected President. it’s quite clear by now that Lizzie Layton is an extremely competent, conscientious and hard-working woman. It’s an inspiring story. She is the first woman sent by the (male) management committee of the Willesden Co-Op to represent them at the national Co-Operative Union Congress. Then she attends the next Congress in Swansea.

For ten years she scrimped and saved enough to buy a house or, more precisely, to have a house of two apartments built to her specifications. She surprised the builder with her knowledge of drainage and ventilation. She insists the deeds of the house should be in her name, not her husband’s, despite the latter’s protests.

The last few pages of her account turn to how much she owes the Guild. Without them she would have had no focus to her life. The family they shared a house with worked all day and went to the pub every night. Without the Guild, its lectures and disciple, she might easily have taken to drink like her mother.

From a shy, nervous woman the Guild made me a fighter. (p.54)

She becomes a political lobbyist, meeting Sir Rufus Isaac to get maternity pay included in the Liberal Party’s forthcoming National Insurance Act (1911). When war came and so many men disappeared, she lobbied for the creation of home helps to support hard-pressed mothers left alone. She memorably describes lobbying the Prince of Wales’s Fund to change its decision not to support unmarried mothers (because of Anglican clerics, obviously) arguing that they needed support more than the married.

In 1921 she retires as Vice-President of the Guild and initially feels bereft. but her local branch was in trouble and so she sets up and runs a clothing club to help working people save for affordable clothes. She has been to three international Congresses but still patches her own boots, repairs her own clothes, and has an allotment. And the last two pages given an idyllic account of her allotment with its little shed, its seats and paraffin stove for cooking supper and the view over the railway embankment to the tower of Hampstead Old Church. Here she lives on her pension and a little money she has saved, and cooks and cares for a friend who is not very well.

What an inspiring narrative!

2. A Plate-Layer’s Wife by Mrs Wrigley

Much shorter and less epic but describing a childhood of extraordinary hard work. She was born in Cefn Mawr in Wales in 1858. Her father was a shoemaker earning 12 shillings a week, her mother went out sewing all day long for 1 shilling. As a small child her chores included:

  • looking after the 4 younger children
  • walking 2 miles to a pit bank to collect coals and carry them home in a basket on her head
  • walk 2 miles to a local farm to buy and bring home buttermilk
  • fetch water from a well in a jar she carried on her head
  • cleaning other people’s backyards for a penny
  • carrying men workers’ dinners to the iron forge for twopence a week

Some of her happiest memories are of going with other children to wash the family clothes in the River Dee. All this by the age of 8.

When she’s about 9 she goes to be a nurse for a child to a family in Stockport. But they make her work long hours as a lackey till a friendly old lady writes her parents to come and fetch her back.

Then she goes to work on a dairy farm near Oswestry. She’s paid 2 shillings and sixpence a month and stays there till she’s 12 years old. Then to work at another dairy farm, at Marple.

1872: aged 14 she moves to a job at a Temperance Hotel in Oldham. The master and mistress teach her to read and write and send her to school. She’s there to the age of 19. Here her wages rise to a pound a month.

1877: moves to a job as servant in a big house in Saddleworth. Hard work for two years. Here she first meets her future husband on the few hours a week she’s allowed out.

Aged 21 she moves to a gentleman’s house to be a cook. It is an excellent house kept by real Christians who were fair to the staff and allowed them balls and entertainments. Five years, until her husband persuades her to marry and leave.

Her husband was a platelayer on the railway earning 18 shillings a week, not enough to support a household so she had to do sewing. She soon joined one of the Oldham Co-operative stores and never looked back for the next 46 years. She’s 72 now and can’t imagine how she’d have survived without the Co-Op.

When she discovered she was pregnant she took in more sewing and washing to make up money but the extra work made her ill and she had to go home to her mother to look after her.

She tells the story of the mother she knew who was much worse off, she couldn’t sew, she often went without food, the children had rags. She got a job minding a house while two fine women went on holiday. There was a marble timepiece and she pawned it to get money to feed her family but the two ladies returned before the could redeem it and she was committed to gaol overnight, while her husband found the sum. A few days later she had her baby and was all alone, so Mrs Wrigley took pity, sent for a nurse, brought round clean bed clothes, and looked after her till she was well. Christ was in that woman.

1894 moved to Stockport. She had the fourth of their children. When they were small the table was often bare or she went without eating anything. One by one the children grew old enough to run errands and small jobs, a newspaper round, delivering milk, it made all the difference to the total family income.

She ensured the children all got an education and, as the boys turned 14, were put into apprenticeships. All five of them were given music lessons so that they made quite the little orchestra. During the Great War one was killed and two got married and moved away. The son died when she was 30 and just 11 months later he husband passed away.

Since then another son died, aged 30. She’s been a widow these 14 years. She couldn’t have stood her life if not for the Guild. It educated her, she became a member of her local branch, then a worker on committees, then was president for two years.

She joined the Suffrage to prevent the next generation having the hard life she endured. She doesn’t think there’d have been a war if women had had the vote beforehand. That’s what they all say. Women had the vote by the 1930s and look what happened next. But it was 1931 and she said she was working for peace. History suggests no-one can keep the peace if enemies (Hitler, Putin) are determined for war. But that shouldn’t stop anyone working to make their little part of the world a better place.

3. In A Mining Village by Mrs F.H. Smith (7 pages)

Born in Cardiff in 1884, Mrs Smith was 19 when she left the job in service she had to marry a miner in 1903. She discovered that miners had baths but no running water. Water had to be brought in from outside and boiled over a coal fire and emptied into the bath a bucket at a time. The miners’ houses weren’t built for convenience, just the bare minimum for the corporation to screw rent out of. There were just two rooms, bedroom and living room. The weekly wash had to be done in the same room as the miner stripped off in, so it was impossible. There was a continual layer of coal dust over everything.

The open fires and freedom of boiling water in numerous containers explains the high rates of child scaldings and burns in Wales. A 5-year old she knows died after falling in a bath of boiling water.

1904: baby daughter born. 1905: rented a house from the colliery company her husband worked for. 1906: a terrible pit explosion which killed 122, including the husband, two sons and adopted son of the woman opposite.

She describes the long hours of pit shifts and only 20 minutes food break. Sometimes so cold they shiver, sometimes so hot they emerge drenched in sweat.

Eventually she had nine children. Since 1925 her husband’s been ill, latterly with neuritis for 9 months. He tried to get light work at the pit but there wasn’t any so he went on the unemployment list.

All the facilities in her town are a cinema, the British Legion and some unfinished playing fields. There are two lovely parks and they can send the children for walks in the beautiful hills.

These days it is heart-breaking to see the unemployed men and lads down at the Labour Exchange. Being a member of the Guild and the local Co-Op has been one of the things that’s kept her going through all the hard times.

4. A Guild Office Clerk contributed by the Editor (7 pages)

This is Davies’s tribute to Harriet A. Kidd, chief secretary at the Guild head office from 1906 to 1917. Davies tells us she was a prickly but fiercely opinionated woman.

She started at a steel mill at Leek when she was ten years old. Whole families were employed by the paternalistic owners, who looked after morals and ensured they went to church.

She became a member of the local Co-Op and then of the Guild in 1897. She became secretary of her branch and of the Macclesfield region. She stayed up late doing Guild work then went to the mill next day. She got involved in trade unionism.

In 1906 she was invited to become a clerk at the Guild’s head office in Westmorland at which point she wrote back a letter confessing that when she was 18 she was seduced, or raped, by her employer and made pregnant. He refused to acknowledge the child and she had to bring up her son in secret, with the help of ‘her people’.

Nonetheless she was taken on at Guild headquarters among women who were supportive. In 1908 she followed the move of the headquarters to Hampstead in London. She became a proficient typist and insisted on hogging the office machine. She lacked much education but enjoyed reading. She became the Guild cashier, and also the cook and caterer whenever Guild Schools were held at the office.

She was the first woman to be elected to a position in the Amalgamated Union of Co-Operative Employees. She was a great advocate of the right of women to run their own lives, to vote, and receive equal pay for their work.

She was a wholehearted socialist, her hero Keir Hardie, her favourite song The Red Flag.

In 1916 she was diagnosed with a fatal illness but bore it with fortitude. Margaret often visited her after she became bed-ridden.

5. A Felt Hat Worker by Mrs Scott J.P.

Nellie. When she was seven her family moved into a draper’s shop. She was given the task of going round the customers every Saturday asking the poor to pay their bills and debts. Her extended family were very opinionated, with relatives who were Conservative, Liberal, an uncle who was a follower of Darwin, a regular visitor to the shop who was a Bradlaughite i.e. atheist. As a child she sat under the counter and listened to the grown-ups arguing back and forth.

When she was 12 she was sent to work in a hat shop, a nice clean job. When she was 14 she was sent to a hat manufactory, one big smelly room. Work started at 6.20am every morning and she had to walk a mile to get there. She only later realised a lot of the girls there were also prostitutes.

She was now living with her uncle, who had returned from Canada and America, and subscribed to American magazines, which she read from cover to cover.

She is badly ill for three months. When she recovers she goes to work in Christie’s Hat Mills. She is bolshie. She tells a conservative woman that the charwoman who brought up her family was as good a soul as Queen Victoria. The hat-making was hard, difficult to push the needles through tough fabric, and the senior women judged their work and sent back anything with uneven stitching to be redone. They had to take work home to work on it till 8 or 9 at night.

It’s too hard so she goes and works at Lees and Hatconks. There a fierce debates between the Conservatives and the Radicals. She joins Clarion Hall and there’s a Ruskin Hall Settlement in Stockport.

She gets married but, on her return, joins the Felt Hatters Trade Union and becomes an activist, getting all the other girls to sign up. When her mother dies she takes over the family ‘ticket’ for membership of the Co-Op. She becomes treasure of the Women’s Labour League, is on the Labour representation Committee and so on. She’s involved in the long campaign to stop girls having to take work home at night.

The text then turns to tell us about her favourite books by authors such as J.M. Barrie, Charles Kingsley, George Eliot, George Egerton, and half a page about H.G. Wells. She says the thing about all Wells’s novels is you seem to know the characters.

[I’m reading this book because the Penguin Selected Essays of Virginia Woolf includes the long introduction to it. Elsewhere in her essays, Woolf launches a sustained attack on novelists from the generation before hers – Arnold Bennett, John Galsworthy and H.G. Wells – and one of her central criticisms is that they describe characters who are ‘not like us’. It is, therefore, extremely enlightening to read the praise for Wells coming from ordinary working class women on precisely this point, that they identify with Wells’s characters. What this does is highlight the class-based nature of Woolf’s opposition to Wells et al. Woolf finds Wells’s characters common and vulgar. Inextricably mixed up in her radical innovations in the novel was a huge amount of unattractive snobbery.]

In 1908 she was asked to set up a Women’s Co-operative Guild in Stockport. There are now 300 members. It’s been a battle for women to take their place alongside the men.

I think sometimes, when I hear the women speaking of the influence of the Guild, what a wonderful organisation it is, and what it has meant to so many women. (p.106)

She stops working in hat factories to become superintendent at a place for feeding school children, was there during the start of the War when there was great want. Then she becomes a sickness visitor for an Approved Society in a part of Derbyshire, for seven years, the last 3 of the war, then 4 afterwards. She describes the bleak snow-packed countryside, the emptiness and beauty, and the kindness and hospitality of the people.

Then a doctor tells her she’s strained her heart and needs to quit the arduous work, sometimes walking over 20 miles a day etc. Now she works as a justice of the peace, or magistrate. The Guild lost members during the war because of its pacifism but it has since restored its numbers. She is proud when she hears testimonies of women who it has helped through deep trouble.

She describes a Guild member who lives out in India with her husband who manages a cotton mill and how she supervises creches and support for the native women.

She says how gratifying it is to think that her work for the Guild, the Co-Op and other progressive movements have paved the way for the women who come afterwards; how the Guild opened doors and minds, how it helped working women become articulate and express their demands.

6. A Public-Spirited Rebel by Mrs Yearn (8 pages)

‘We’ve had enough of posh men lording it over us, we’re not going to accept their posh wives!’

One of 14 children, eight of whom died in childhood. Dad was a brick-setter and couldn’t work for half the year, so mum went to the mill, leaving childcare to the older sisters. The family became slowly better off and mum joined the Stores. She died of cancer.

She married but her husband was out of work during the Engineers strike so she went to the mill. She was a trade unionist and got all the women to join, for which she was given the sack.

Then she joined the Guild and was soon elected to the committee. She attended her first Congress in 1915. She pioneered women in public roles in Oldham and stood for the town council, incurring much mockery from the men. She gives a CV of her activities, roles and positions through the 1920s, often the first woman to hold particular posts.

Class conscious, she objected to Lady Beaverbrook standing as a candidate in a local election. We’ve had enough of posh men lording it over us, we’re not going to accept their posh wives!

She tells us the International Co-Operative Women’s Guild will ensure there is peace.

Appendix

The appendix is made up of excerpts from lots of letters sent to Davies. It opens with the longest one, at 6 pages long, then settles down to 1- or 2-page snippets.

A childhood in the Fens about 1850 by Mrs Burrows

An account of an incredibly hard childhood. On her 8th birthday she was taken out of school and set to work in the fields. She worked alongside 50 or so other children and was among the oldest. The working day was 14 hours long. It was at Croyland near Peterborough and some of the children were as young as 5. The ganger used a long whip to make them work. They left town on the stroke of 6 and had to walk at least 2 miles, sometimes 5.

In the four years she worked there they never had a single meal under cover or in shelter except on one occasion, on a particularly bitter cold day, when a local shepherd’s wife told the ganger to let the children come into her house to eat their lunch.

As a child at Croyland she saw many opium addicts and knew a child whose daily task it was to go to a pharmacy to collect a shilling’s worth of opium.

After 4 years slavery she was sent to work in a factory in Leeds. Her father was a kindly man but sick with a brain tumour. Her mother worked like a dog. When the children grew up they paid her back and tried to make her last years comfortable.

Extract from letters

There follow 16 short extracts from letters. They all appear to have been commissioned to answer a question along the lines of ‘What books have you been reading?’ or ‘What are your favourite books?’ because they all address this question, briefly or at length. None of them have interesting views per se but it’s interesting to see the different levels of literacy and articulacy on display, as well as getting a sense of which authors’ names recur, notably H.G. Wells, but also Shaw and Hardy. And among the classics, everyone loves Dickens.

  1. Mrs Hood: never a day without attending a committee, reads the progressive newspapers; likes Scott, Dickens and Thackeray, would love to read Tess, wants to read a good history of the French Revolution
  2. Mrs Ferguson: reads the daily papers and the Co-operative press but also interested in books on international affairs; and dips into Tennyson for rest
  3. Mrs Foister: lists books she’s read in the past 2 and a half years, an interesting insight into what was available to the serious reader
  4. Mrs Axten: some of the books she’s read in the past 4 years
  5. Mrs Corrie: reads pamphlets to keep up with the Labour and Co-op movement; including Kipps, Bennett and about to start Tess
  6. Mrs Preston:  Dickens, especially the Pickwick Papers and Nicholas Nickleby
  7. Mrs Burman: the Happy Traveller by Frank Tatchell
  8. Mrs Woodward: reads newspaper and journals for research for her position in the Guild; then gives a list of 27 novels
  9. Mrs Rix: Little Women and Ella Wheeler Wilcox
  10. Mrs Garrett: reads to inform her work for the Guild; reads the classics but singles out H.G. Wells; her son lent her ‘The Green Hat’ which she strongly disapproved of
  11. Mrs White: a Guild officer, she and her husband have long attended the Working Men’s College in Camden Town; her list of 20 or so books includes ones by Wells and George Bernard Shaw
  12. Mrs Bedhall: gets books from the students library at the Warwickshire Education Committee; she gives an interesting list of books on serious topics such as co-operation, socialism, education and so on
  13. Mrs Bampton: likes books about the supernatural or history
  14. Mrs Smith: likes books about London and so likes Martin Chuzzlewit (by Dickens)
  15. Mrs Marshall: Hardy and Lorna Doone
  16. Mrs Russell: busy with Co-op and Guild work but scrapes together a list of books she’s liked in the past, Hardy, Eliot, Bronte and Ella Wheeler Wilcox

The last ten pages contain five excerpts on very specific subjects.

Pioneer Poor Law Guardians

From a Lincolnshire Guildswoman

In 1895 the unnamed author overcomes male opposition to get elected to the Board of Guardians. How she and two women colleagues win round the Chairman of the Board. Becomes the first woman Vice-Chair of the House Committee. She has a jokey relationship with the chairman. He warns the ladies not to take the seats of ‘the old fossils’ on the committee. After serving for nine years she wonders if she herself has become one of ‘the old fossils’. When it was proposed to send a woman to the national Poor Law Conference the men cried out that women should stay at home and mind their families, but she overcame this opposition and went anyway.

From a Lancashire Guildswoman

When a young girl the mill she worked in burned down and she was unemployed and often went hungry. When she got another job she saved her pennies and invested in the local Co-op shop. Only later did she hear about the women’s Guild.

I attended the Guild Annual Meeting, which was a revelation. Each day my vision seemed to be widening and my spirit felt that here was the very opportunity I had always been seeking but never put into words. I had longings and aspirations and a vague idea of power within myself which had never had an opportunity of realisation. (p.147)

She comes to understand why the campaign to give women the vote was so important. The Guild was about widening its members’ sense of what their duties, rights and responsibilities could be. All girls and women were brought up to believe their job was to look after their man, their home and their children. The notion that they could break out of this prison and take on broader social, administrative positions came as a revelation to tens of thousands of women, as these letters testify again and again.

She quotes men who resisted women taking roles in Poor Law administration but learned that they were the most reliable and clear headed. And she describes her weekly schedule to show how routine and organisation allowed her to do all the housework, and then all her administrative and Guild jobs on top.

Pit-head baths

From a mid-Lancashire Guildswoman

This woman quotes the account of her husband describing the arrangement of baths at the colliery where he works, and comments on the enormous benefit for miners’ wives of having the men strip, bathe, and put on clean clothes at the pit, rather than bring the dirty clothes home to take off and shake coaldust all round the house.

From a Durham Guildswoman

Her husband’s pit have had showers since 1926 and she describes the advantages for him and her: no dirty clothes bringing soot and dust back to dirty the house; no smell of pit which used to fill the house; no need to boil water for the miner’s bath and for his dinner on the same fire at the same time. Vast improvement.

A member’s view of the Guild

From a London Guildswoman

An inspiring page and a half in which the unnamed author describes how membership of the Guild not only liberated her but gave her a profound understanding of the power of unity and united action. She praises the Guild for its democratic spirit whereby all the members feel absolute equals. She cites members who the Guild has given the confidence to think about bigger issues, outside the home, realise that their voice and opinions have value, given them to confidence to speak up, even in situations previously reserved exclusively for men.

Paratexts

According to Wikipedia:

Paratext is material that surrounds a published main text supplied by the authors, editors, printers, and publishers. These added elements form a frame for the main text, and can change the reception of a text or its interpretation by the public.

The main body of ‘Life as We Have Known It’ is not only fragmentary in itself, but strewn with additional paratexts which enrich or complicate its reception, depending on your point of view. There are three:

1. Introductory letter to Margaret Llewelyn Davies by Virginia Woolf (28 pages)

The original text was published by the Hogarth Press, the small publishing house set up by Virginia Woolf and her husband, Leonard. Virginia knew Davies so it’s no coincidence that the text has a long  and characteristically digressive introductory essay by Virginia, which describes her own involvement with the Guild, specifically her impressions of visiting a 1913 Congress and then the Guild’s London headquarters.

Woolf’s factual writing, her essays, and reviews, are generally very chewy, meaning they are often highly digressive, approaching their subject in a roundabout way, and this long essay is no exception. In sheer length, Woolf’s introduction is longer than all but one of the Guildswomen’s contributions i.e. in depth and complexity it threatens to overwhelm the stories that follow. It also spends a long time going into detail about the distance which she, as a privileged upper-middle-class lady, felt from the earthy working class women of the movement. For these reasons I’d definitely leave reading it till after you’ve read the main body of the text.

Woolf’s introduction is included in David Bradshaw’s edition of Woolf’s collected essays, and I’ve summarised it at length in a separate blog post.

You could give students an exercise to place Woolf’s introduction side by side with one or two of the working women’s texts, and ask the students to identify what the Woolf has that the others don’t, in a bid to extract and define literariness. Distance, detachment, acute observation of details, self consciousness, class consciousness, anxiety, non-linearity, obscurity, digression and indirection, these would all be elements you would note in the Woolf which are completely absent from the Guildswomen’s accounts. Are they aspects of what makes Woolf literature while the Guildswomen’s accounts remain social history?

Conversely, what do the women’s accounts have that Woolf’s introduction doesn’t? Some kind of authenticity?

2. Notes on the Women’s Co-Operative Guild by Margaret Llewelyn Davies (1930)

Davies was a radical in the old sense of the word, a genuine socialist. She emphasises that the Guild she ran took its place among many other working class movements, especially trade unionism. They make up the fabric of working people’s lives: trade unions stretch the warp of a decent living wage, while the cooperative movement threads the woof of intelligent spending. The aim? Gaining control of industry by the people for the people, consciously echoing Marx.

She sees the co-operative movement as ‘the beginning of a great revolution!’

The Movement shows in practice that there is nothing visionary or impossible in the aspirations of those who desire to see the Community in control, instead of Capitalists.

The co-operative system is designed to prevent people making fortunes and instead distributing wealth fairly among all.

Capital becomes the tool of labour and not its master. (p.165)

When she wrote there were over 1,000 co-operative societies across England and Scotland with some 6 million members, forming one of the largest trading and manufacturing concerns in Great Britain. The union is allied with the Labour Party and with an international co-operative alliance with members in 34 countries.

So she sees all this as part of a peaceful revolution ‘from autocratic Capitalism to democratic Co-operation’ and sees the Women’s Co-Operative Guild – with its 67,000 members in 1,400 branches – as playing a key role and the central mechanism of reform is shopping. In her day it was women who ran all households and did all the shopping for everything. Therefore, if they chose not to shop at normal commercial businesses designed to maximise profit, let alone at shops tied to factories and pits, but instead spent money at co-operative stores which they part-owned and ran, they changed at a stroke from being exploited consumers to empowered decision makers.

She explains the administrative structure of the Guild, staffed and run entirely by working women so that as soon as they joined, opportunities arose to volunteer for this or that committee or role. With responsibility came education in how to run and manage things, alongside political education into the big issues of the day, a kind of ratchet effect leading women who joined inevitably forward into greater enlightenment and empowerment.

And roles in the local Women’s Guilds acted as springboards for roles in the local and regional Co-operative movement. Despite opposition from men at all levels, at the time of writing many Guildswomen had taken up roles at all levels of the regional and national Co-Operative Movement.

In addition, newly liberated, informed and confident women have been active in national campaigns for:

  • the establishment of school clinics
  • a national maternity scheme
  • the inclusion of maternity benefit in the National Insurance Act of 1911
  • ensuring this maternity benefit was legally awarded to the mother not the father

Not only have women been educated to take on administrative roles within the Guild, the wider Co-Operative Movement, but in local and regional government. And this momentum has become international with the creation of an International Co-Operative Women’s Guild including 27 countries (including the Soviet Union). At the most recent Congress, in 1930, delegates discussed whether the position of women would be improved by state family allowances, which sounds like the perennial proposal of state pay for housework.

She ends with bracing optimism that the International movement is committed to peace and lobbies the League of Nations for universal disarmament. We know all the fine words for peace during the 1930s completely failed, and its abject failure casts a sad shadow over what had, up until this last paragraph, been a bracing list of outstanding achievements.

3. Afterword by Anna Davin and Gloden Dallas (1977)

Most historical documents are written by educated men, so most accounts of working class lives, especially the lives of working class women, have been written by outsiders. The rarity of accounts written by genuinely working class women makes the testimony of this book priceless, with its first-hand testimony to lives and sufferings, of their childhood, marriages and children, above all of the unremitting burden of hard labour, long hours, poverty and endless worry.

And not just that, but the second part in many of these accounts – describing how these downtrodden women discovered the Co-op movement and then the Guild and its huge impact in liberating them, opening their minds, educating them and encouraging their abilities to think more widely, to take up positions of influence and power – are just as rare and valuable.

So the book is not just a document of working class immiseration but at the same time uplifting and inspirational, giving example after example of how uneducated working women were empowered to escape the prison of their homes and domestic responsibilities and engage with the wider world.

4. Virago

There’s a fourth context not contained in the text as such, which is that 46 years after it was first published, the book was chosen by the founders of the new feminist publishing house, Virago Books, as their first publication. So it has a signal importance from two quite distinct moments in feminist publishing, 1931 and 1977. So that reading it now is not only to engage with a classic of women’s social history but to also see it through the lens of the optimistic feminist editors of the 1970s. There are, as it were, at least two eras or types of feminist aspiration radiating from the text.

Thoughts

Horror The primary thought is, of course, horror at the appalling conditions and experiences described by the six core accounts and especially the childhood in the Fens. The authors thought readers in 1931 might not credit the miseries they lived through, how much harder is it for us a hundred years later.

Triumph Next you respond to the ‘triumph over adversity’ theme of the accounts, awed by how these women supported their menfolk and families through decades of grinding poverty, by sheer, unremitting hard work and commitment. None of them ran away from their responsibilities through years and decades of grinding poverty, not enough money, not enough to eat, no clothes for the children, depriving themselves of food to make sure their children ate and so on. Mind-bogglingly exemplary commitment and what used to be called moral fibre.

The Guild And then all the accounts take the same turn, which is to describe their discovery of the Co-Op movement, then of the Women’s Guild within it, often running alongside a commitment to trade unions and other movements for the improvement of working people. In this respect, it’s a self-selected group – if they praise the role the Guild played in opening their minds, supporting their education, boosting their confidence, allowing them to take on administrative roles of a sort previously unavailable to women, it’s precisely because these are letters written to Davies from Guild members in praise of the Guild’s role.

Which doesn’t stop them being eye opening about not just the misery of childhood and work in the Victorian working classes, but about the role the Co-Op movement and the Guild in particular played in liberating so many working women’s minds and abilities.

Oddity Then there’s puzzlement. It’s hard, at this distance of time, to understand why there are the 16 short letters or snippets from Guildswomen listing their favourite books. Why was this considered important? Was it to address some concern at the time about working class literacy or women’s literacy? Was general reading considered a marker of cultural achievement and so was valued as much as the financial support the movement offered? On the face of it you’d have thought these 20 odd pages would have been better filled with a few more detailed autobiographical accounts on the pattern of Mrs Layton or Mrs Burrows. But maybe it was important to Davies and the Guild to make a point about the cultural uplift the Guild supported?

Paratexts It’s already a text made up of multiple sub-texts and fragments, which set up complex echoes and cross-references, raising lots of issues of social history and politics which it doesn’t quite complete or fulfil. But then there are the paratexts which add a whole new layer of complexity. Davies’s afterword gives a factual account of the Guild which provides context for the letters but it is itself haunted by the fact that – when you look it up – you discover that the Women’s Co-Operative Guild closed in 2016. So not only are the women whose accounts the book contains long dead, but the organisation which Davies describes in such loving detail, is itself now defunct, a ghost.

Virginia Woolf‘s introductory essay is important but is so characteristically self-involved and tortuous, so long and impactful in its literary and psychological complexity, that it threatens to overawe the much simpler, starker texts from the working women. Above all, it enters a big note of doubt and scepticism about the Guild’s work, which you should definitely only read once you’ve first fully read all the original accounts.

Anna Davin and Gloden Dallas’s afterword radiates the kind of radical socialist feminism of the 1970s which, as far as I can tell, has completely disappeared. 1977 was still close to the radical politics of the late 1960s, it was a world of squats and huge trade union membership leading to regular national strikes and mass protest marches which gave a real sense that some kind of radical restructuring of society was possible, was maybe just round the corner. All that has disappeared like morning dew.

Gone When I try to describe to my kids what it felt like to be young and left wing in the 1970s going into the embattled 1980s they look at me like I’ve just landed from Mars. Their world is mediated through TikTok, Instagram and WhatsApp. Rather than changing the capitalist basis of the economic system my daughter, the queer 4th wave feminist, is concerned about gender fluidity, MeToo in the American film industry and Black Lives Matter on the streets of American cities.

TikTok The world of coal miners, of unionised heavy industries, the world of local communities dotted around Britain loyally supporting their local Co-op, in fact the whole concept of people living all their lives in small close-knit communities, has disappeared utterly, to be replaced by cosmopolitan networks of globetrotting buddies keeping in touch via social media. And they all love it, young people love the gadgets and opportunities provided by billion-dollar American corporations and don’t want to change a thing.

Lost So, for me, the book is (obviously enough) testimony to the lost world of Victorian and early 20th century working class poverty and the fightback against it – but it is also witness to the lost world of 1970s radicalism, to the optimistic feminist editors who chose it to be Virago’s first ever publication. As I read it I had the complicated sensation of engaging with not one but two lost worlds.


Credit

‘Life as We Have Known It: The Voices of Working-Class Women’ edited by Margaret Llewelyn Davies was first published by The Hogarth Press in 1931. It was republished by Virago Press in 1977. I read the 2012 Virago paperback edition.

Related link

Related reviews

Women in Love by D.H. Lawrence (1920)

‘I do think,’ he said, ‘that the world is only held together by the mystic conjunction, the ultimate unison between people — a bond. And the immediate bond is between man and woman.’
(Rupert Birkin, sounding like his creator, Women in Love, page 169)

‘Instead of chopping yourself down to fit the world, chop the world down to fit yourself.’
(More Birkin wisdom)

‘One must be free, above all, one must be free. One may forfeit everything else, but one must be free.’
(Gudrun, voicing Lawrence’s fundamental position)

‘The Rainbow’ and ‘Women in Love’ are not so much novels as overwhelming, mind-blowing experiences.

Originally Lawrence conceived of ‘The Rainbow’ and ‘Women in Love’ as one massive novel which would have been as long as War and Peace. It was his publisher, Methuen, who persuaded him to break it into two (still very long) works of 500 or so pages each. In the event, what with the negative reviews and then the official banning of ‘The Rainbow’, Methuen chose not to publish the sequel, in fact Lawrence had trouble placing it until the American publisher Martin Secker brought it out, in a privately subscribed edition, in 1920.

‘The Rainbow’ is a masterpiece at least in part because the first half describes the lives of farmers in their part of the West Midlands in a kind of timeless, elemental style, making the figures almost like mythical figures who live close to the land, and this legendary power is carried over into the more modern, mundane life of the final figure in the novel, Ursula Brangwen, who carries echoes and shades of the murky ancestors with her.

‘Women in Love’, by contrast, starts in the recognisable modern world of cars and collieries, trains and trams and work, making its lead figures, the two oldest Brangwen sisters, Ursula and Gudrun, thoroughly modern women, at home in the world of universities, art school, managers, cities, trains, London and Paris. So it lacks the mythical depth and resonance of the first novel.

It starts some years after ‘The Rainbow’ ends because Ursula has been teaching at Willey Green grammar school ‘for some years’ (p.9), whereas she hadn’t started that job at the end of ‘The Rainbow’, and Gudrun is back from three years art school in London, whereas she hadn’t left in ‘The Rainbow’.

Ursula is 26, Gudrun is 25. They are wondering what to do with their lives and the novel opens with them having a half-hearted conversation about marriage.

They decide to visit a wedding they know is taking place that morning. The walk to the church through the ugly industrial town places them class-wise, because they have to walk through working class miners’ areas where the miners’ wives stare at the pair in their bright fashionable clothes, and children shout abuse. They are both a class above their setting.

The wedding introduces us to three more key characters: firstly to the two young men the sisters fancy, being:

Gerald Crich who Gudrun passionately fancies. He is heir to the local mining business, a commanding man and presence – ‘fair, good-looking, healthy, with a great reserve of energy. He was erect and complete, there was a strange stealth glistening through his amiable, almost happy appearance’.

Rupert Birkin who Ursula fancies:

She craved for Rupert Birkin. When he was there, she felt complete, she was sufficient, whole… If only Birkin would form a close and abiding connection with her, she would be safe during this fretful voyage of life. He could make her sound and triumphant, triumphant over the very angels of heaven.

Rupert is one of the school-inspectors of the county.

What’s a little surprising about both these men is we aren’t shown the girls first meeting them, bumping into them again, getting to know them and so on. The novel opens with both girls fully committed to their crushes on both men.

The third character is the dashing, fashionable, tall, slow, reluctant woman with a weight of fair hair and a pale, long face, named Hermione Roddice, a friend of the Criches.

She was the most remarkable woman in the Midlands. Her father was a Derbyshire Baronet of the old school, she was a woman of the new school, full of intellectuality, and heavy, nerve-worn with consciousness. She was passionately interested in reform, her soul was given up to the public cause. But she was a man’s woman, it was the manly world that held her.

And:

a tall queer, frightening figure, with her heavy fair hair slipping to her eyes.

The plot revolves around an apparently endless number of meetings, conversations and debates between these five central characters.

Lawrence’s hyperbole

A terrible storm came over her, as if she were drowning. She was possessed by a devastating hopelessness.

As with ‘The Rainbow’, the characters’ feelings are portrayed as evanescent, ever-changing and, crucially, extreme. They flash from one extreme to another even as we watch:

Birkin’s eyes were at the moment full of anger. But swiftly they became troubled, doubtful, then full of a warm, rich affectionateness and laughter.

Or cohabit in extremes of contradiction.

A wonderful tenderness burned in him, at the sight of her quivering, so sensitive fingers: and at the same time he was full of rage and callousness. (p.346)

She could not believe—she did not believe. Yet she believed, triumphantly (p.372)

Gudrun looked at Ursula with steady, balancing eyes. She admired and despised her sister so much, both! (p.493)

The simplest argument can lead to characters hating each other.

He could feel violent waves of hatred and loathing of all he said, coming out of her. It was dynamic hatred and loathing, coming strong and black out of the unconsciousness. (p.116)

Some event or conversation leaves a character so tortured she wants to die. Hermione listens to Birkin explaining why he’s copying the design of a Chinese vase and her reaction is way over the top:

She suffered the ghastliness of dissolution, broken and gone in a horrible corruption. And he stood and looked at her unmoved. She strayed out, pallid and preyed-upon like a ghost, like one attacked by the tomb-influences which dog us. And she was gone like a corpse… (p.99)

Ursula bursts into tears and doesn’t know whether from joy or misery. Rupert and Gerald sometimes love, sometimes hate, sometimes admire and sometimes despise each other, neither of them, nor the reader, can predict their ever-changing moods.

‘Gerald,’ Birkin said, ‘I rather hate you.’
‘I know you do,’ said Gerald.

Of course he had been loving Gerald all along, and all along denying it. (p.231)

Hermione loves Birkin but at the same time:

She hated him in a despair that shattered her and broke her down, so that she suffered sheer dissolution like a corpse, and was unconscious of everything save the horrible sickness of dissolution that was taking place within her, body and soul.

In fact the Italian Contessa staying with Hermione, explicitly points this out after dinner:

‘Look,’ said the Contessa, in Italian. ‘He is not a man, he is a chameleon, a creature of change.’ (p.103)

Nobody has any control over their feelings. Nobody has the smooth detachment, the stiff upper lip, the gift for under-statement which was supposed to characterise the English. Lawrence’s metier is over-statement. I noticed early on that the most recurring emotion is fear.

If only Birkin would form a close and abiding connection with her, she would be safe during this fretful voyage of life. He could make her sound and triumphant, triumphant over the very angels of heaven. If only he would do it! But she was tortured with fear, with misgiving.

This kind of hyperbole occurs on every page.

Suddenly [Ursula] started. She saw, in the shaft of ruddy, copper-coloured light near her, the face of a man. It was gleaming like fire, watching her, waiting for her to be aware. It startled her terribly. She thought she was going to faint. All her suppressed, subconscious fear sprang into being, with anguish.

Sometimes she [Ursula] had periods of tight horror, when it seemed to her that her life would pass away, and be gone, without having been more than this.

Gudrun went on her way half dazed. If this were human life, if these were human beings, living in a complete world, then what was her own world, outside? She was aware of her grass-green stockings, her large grass-green velour hat, her full soft coat, of a strong blue colour. And she felt as if she were treading in the air, quite unstable, her heart was contracted, as if at any minute she might be precipitated to the ground. She was afraid.

Hermione and Ursula look at some luxury shirts but when Hermione comes near her, Ursula panics:

Hermione came near, and her bosom writhed, and Ursula was for a moment blank with panic. And for a moment Hermione’s haggard eyes saw the fear on the face of the other… overcome with dread… (p.104)

Why? Because this is how all Lawrence’s characters feel, constantly overwhelmed, falling into panics or despairs, tortured by the never-ending intensity of their feelings.

There are other feelings, lots of them, I just noticed how often fear dominated. One of the few criticisms I’d make of Lawrence is I dislike it when this hyperbole makes him use the word ‘insane’. He does mean feeling something to an extent which is almost deranged but use of the word makes me draw up short, and realise how preposterous he’s being.

The result was a nasty and insane scene with Halliday on the fourth evening.

Why not just say ‘The result was a nasty scene with Halliday on the fourth evening’? Most of Lawrence’s hyperbole I can take, but his references to insanity and madness grated.

The book’s worldview

By chapter 4 I began to realise that every chapter (more or less) contains at its core an argument, two or more characters getting into a debate about something or other. Characters in other novels have conversations which move the plot along, but in Lawrence – certainly in this book – very often they start talking purely in order to have a 6th form debate about a Big Issue. The five central characters are all very opinionated and at the drop of a hat start arguing.

The fundamental premise of Lawrence’s worldview seems to be that God is dead and so people have to make their own values, figure out how to live their own lives. The God is dead premise is obviously key but only made explicit once, by Birkin, the Lawrence avatar.

‘And you mean if there isn’t the woman, there’s nothing?’ said Gerald.
‘Pretty well that – seeing there’s no God.’ (p.64)

Part of the statement’s impact is its throwaway nature. In the later nineteenth century hundreds of novels and autobiographies featured Great Debates about the existence of God or the devil, the protagonists’ agonising about their Loss of Faith etc. But here, around 1915, is Lawrence simply dismissing all of that. It’s a non-subject. Junk. Thus freed, we have to get on with living our best lives.

Mind you, Birkin goes quite a long way beyond a sensible atheist humanism. Lawrence gives him extreme views, regularly positing the end of humanity. With characteristically Lawrentian contempt, he wonders if humanity’s time has come? It would be a good thing.

Birkin looked at the land, at the evening, and was thinking: ‘Well, if mankind is destroyed, if our race is destroyed like Sodom, and there is this beautiful evening with the luminous land and trees, I am satisfied. That which informs it all is there, and can never be lost. After all, what is mankind but just one expression of the incomprehensible. And if mankind passes away, it will only mean that this particular expression is completed and done. That which is expressed, and that which is to be expressed, cannot be diminished. There it is, in the shining evening. Let mankind pass away — time it did. The creative utterances will not cease, they will only be there. Humanity doesn’t embody the utterance of the incomprehensible any more. Humanity is a dead letter. There will be a new embodiment, in a new way. Let humanity disappear as quick as possible.’

An opinion which is repeated right at the end of the novel. But this is just one character’s opinion, Birkin, the most negative of the quartet: ‘His dislike of mankind, of the mass of mankind, amounted almost to an illness.’ (p.66)

Gerald’s worldview is less vivid and memorable because he lives it; he is the embodiment of masculinity, virile and in control, a manifesto in action. It’s easy to quote Birkin as if he represents Lawrence’s view, but really the book’s worldview is generated by the dialectic between Birkin the gloomy theoriser and Gerald the confident man of action; and that’s before you bring in Ursula, Gudrun and Hermione, who all contribute to its complex weft of opinions. The difference between a lecture or manifesto, and a work of art, is complexity and ambiguity.

Chapter 1. Sisters

Introducing Ursula and Gudrun Brangwen, sitting chatting about whether they’ll ever get married before they set off walking through their ugly industrial town to see an actual wedding. This features the two men they fancy, coalmine owner Gerald Crich and county school inspector Rupert Birkin. The groom is late and there’s an odd moment when he arrives, sees, his bride on the path to the church, and then makes a mad dash to try and beat her to the door.

Chapter 2. Shortlands

The wedding reception is held at the Criches’ family home, Shortlands, where we see Gerald confidently hosting the party (his father retires ill) and see him and Birkin interacting with guests, notably the breezily confident Hermione Roddice. Gerald, Rupert and Hermione have a three-way argument about race and nationality:

‘Do you think race corresponds with nationality?’ she asked musingly…

Chapter 3. Class-room

Ursula at work teaching children about the structure of catkins. She is startled by the arrival of Birkin and then, unexpectedly, Hermione. Hermione and Birkin have an argument, she saying education makes children too conscious and stops them behaving spontaneously.

‘Isn’t the mind—’ she said, with the convulsed movement of her body, ‘isn’t it our death? Doesn’t it destroy all our spontaneity, all our instincts? Are not the young people growing up today, really dead before they have a chance to live?’
‘Not because they have too much mind, but too little,’ he said brutally.
‘Are you sure?’ she cried. ‘It seems to me the reverse. They are over-conscious, burdened to death with consciousness.’
‘Imprisoned within a limited, false set of concepts,’ he cried.

So far, every chapter has featured a kind of central debate or argument. I wonder if this is the pattern for the book.

Chapter 4. Diver

Ursula and Gudrun go for a walk to the local lake, Willey Water, come to a lake and see a naked man run off a jetty and dive in. It is confident Gerald. They’re both jealous of men’s freedom.

‘God, what it is to be a man!’ [Gudrun] cried.
‘What?’ exclaimed Ursula in surprise.
‘The freedom, the liberty, the mobility!’ cried Gudrun, strangely flushed and brilliant. ‘You’re a man, you want to do a thing, you do it. You haven’t the thousand obstacles a woman has in front of her.’

Ursula tells Gudrun the terrible story of Gerald accidentally shooting his brother dead with a rusty old gun when they were boys. Then they comes across Hermione out for a walk with Laura. After Hermione greets, converses a bit then wanders off, Gudrun says how much she admires her, but Ursula is dead set against her.

The two sisters were like a pair of scissors, snipping off everything that came athwart them; or like a knife and a whetstone, the one sharpened against the other. (p.56)

The sisters jokily tell each other that they are a thousand times more intelligent and beautiful than Hermione, let alone the masses in the street.

‘Strut,’ said Ursula. ‘One wants to strut, to be a swan among geese.’
‘Exactly,’ cried Gudrun, ‘a swan among geese.’

Chapter 5. In the Train

Birkin has to go to London by train. On the platform he bumps into Crich and they’re more or less obliged to travel together. As in every preceding chapter there is a debate. Gerald has been reading a newspaper leader which argues that ‘there must arise a man who will give new values to things, give us new truths, a new attitude to life, or else we shall be a crumbling nothingness in a few years, a country in ruin’. This triggers Birkin to say all such announcing of plans is just playing; what we need to do is tear up society, starting by tearing up ourselves. Lawrence’s characters’ opinions are always vehement but often don’t really make sense:

‘We are such dreary liars. Our one idea is to lie to ourselves. We have an ideal of a perfect world, clean and straight and sufficient. So we cover the earth with foulness; life is a blotch of labour, like insects scurrying in filth, so that your collier can have a pianoforte in his parlour, and you can have a butler and a motor-car in your up-to-date house, and as a nation we can sport the Ritz, or the Empire, Gaby Deslys and the Sunday newspapers.’ (p.60)

Disappointingly this morphs into Birkin asserting that the meaning of life is love, that he wants the finality of a definitive love.

‘The old ideals are dead as nails – nothing there. It seems to me there remains only this perfect union with a woman – sort of ultimate marriage – and there isn’t anything else.’

It’s on this journey that Birkin expresses his dislike of people and his contentment if all of humanity were wiped out, quoted above.

He tells Gerald he stays with a man in Soho, Halliday, and mixes with a Bohemian crowd. Interesting to read how little the profile of this type has changed in the last hundred years:

‘Painters, musicians, writers – hangers-on, models, advanced young people, anybody who is openly at outs with the conventions, and belongs to nowhere particularly. They are often young fellows down from the University, and girls who are living their own lives, as they say.’

The most significant changes would be that nowadays such a crowd would be 1) diverse and multicultural and 2) LGBTQ+ and gender fluid.

Chapter 6. Crème de Menthe

Later the same day Gerald meets Rupert in a Bohemian cafe. The latter is chatting to Minette (Minny) Darrington, small, bobbed hair, with a lisp, nicknamed ‘the Pussum’.

Her ex-boyfriend, Halliday, an old Etonian, turns up. He chucked her and told her to go to the countryside when he learned that she’s pregnant but she refuses. Others join the table, Maxim Libidnikov and Julius who Lawrence has Minette rather unnecessarily tell us is a Jew.

Gerald is more and more attracted to her wanton behaviour and sits pressed up against her in the taxi they get to Halliday’s house (the flat where Birkin bunks down when in London) where they are surprised by the illiterate Arab servant he’s taken in off the streets. Bohemia, darling.

Chapter 7. Totem

Next morning in the same apartment, Gerald wakes up. Going into the main room he is surprised to find Halliday and Maxim naked in front of the fire. Bohemia. Rubert has his bath and, after he’s followed, Gerald adopts the manners of the house and comes out naked. He goes into the bedroom where he obviously slept with Minette. Her eyes are chaotic. She is like ‘a violated slave’ which arouses Gerald all over again but he realises he has to separate himself from her.

They go about their business for the day, and all reassemble to go to a music hall that evening, then back to Halliday’s flat. Gerald hangs on for two more days but the group become more fractious until Halliday provokes Gerald one evening and Gerald is on the verge of punching his face in before he turns and leaves.

Thus Minette achieves her aim, which was to make Halliday jealous and make him love her again and, hopefully, get him to marry her. This she has achieved by the time Gerald leaves.

Chapter 8. Breadalby

Breadalby was a Georgian house with Corinthian pillars, standing among the softer, greener hills of Derbyshire, not far from Cromford. It is Hermione Roddice’s family home, set in landscaped ground. She invites Ursula and Gudrun to stay. Also staying are Birkin, a young Italian Contessa, young athletic-looking Miss Bradley, Sir Joshua, a dry Baronet of fifty, and a woman secretary, a Fräulein März, young and slim and pretty. Later arrive Hermione’s brother, tall debonaire Alexander Roddice, a Liberal MP, who arrives along with Gerald Crich.

Edwardian lunch presented by servants under the lovely old elm tree in the garden while the characters witter about education. Tea and a walk round the grounds. Hermione loves Birkin but realises that he’s come to hate her and a break is coming.

Gorgeous dinner with all the ladies wearing fashionable dress. Followed the staging of an impromptu ballet in the style of the Russian Ballet of Pavlova and Nijinsky, the servants bringing down Hermione’s gorgeous Oriental costumes, Alexander playing the piano.

Next morning they go skinny dipping in the ponds in the grounds, except Ursula and Gudrun and Birkin. Gerald gets his kit off at the drop of a hat. He knows how handsome and male he looks. After lunch a discussion about whether the old social values have collapsed in which case, what news ones are emerging? Gerald thinks people should and will be defined by the role in society, their job. Their private lives will remain private. Birkin objects that there is no social equality. Birkin feels people are as different and self sufficient as stars.

Later, he goes to Hermione’s boudoir, feeling he had been rude. He sits quietly and reads while she writes letters but in fact she is flooded by a vast wave of hatred, suddenly she realises Birkin is standing in her way and only eliminating him can she be free. So she takes a lapis lazuli paperweight and cracks it down on his skull with all her might. Fortunately her fingers get in the way masking a lot of the blow. She raises it again but Birkin ducks under his book and crabs out of the room.

Instead of going looking for medical help he walks out of the house across the grounds and into a wood where he strips naked and rolls in the grass and flowers then walks through a young pine wood deliberately letting the needles sting him, experiencing an epiphany of the post-human world. Is he mad? Who cares.

He climbed out of the valley, wondering if he were mad. But if so, he preferred his own madness, to the regular sanity. He rejoiced in his own madness, he was free. He did not want that old sanity of the world, which was become so repulsive. He rejoiced in the new-found world of his madness. It was so fresh and delicate and so satisfying.

Eventually, dressed again, he staggers to the railway station and catches a train home where he is laid up in bed with concussion.

Chapter 9. Coal-dust

Two scenes. In the first Ursula and Gudrun go for a walk to the coalminers’ town, are delayed at a closed level crossing while a long train shunts by and up rides Gerald Crich on a horse, a beautiful mare, which panics at the very loud noise of the clanging carts and rears and bucks and terrifies the sisters while Gerald enjoys mastering the poor terrified beast.

The second half describes Gudrun’s addiction to walking the working class colliers quarters, especially in Friday night when they get paid and get pissed in the pubs. She pairs off with an electrician named Palmer, a fairly educated man, they promenade, go to the movies, but are never really an item.

Chapter 10. Sketch-book

The sisters go to a remote part of Willey Water to sketch. Who should appear but a rowing boat rowed by Gerald containing Hermione. Domineering Hermione asks to have a look at Gudrun’s sketchbook but bickers with Gerald and the book falls into the lake, Gerald reaching out and into the water to retrieve it. Hermione makes a dramatic show of being sorry, while Gudrun wants the book back, and Gerald a) despises Hermione b) is taken with Gudrun’s pride. And this incident establishes a link between them. it establishes Gudrun’s ascendancy over Gerald.

Chapter 11. An Island

Meanwhile Ursula has wandered along a stream which feeds the lake up to a big mill pond where she finds Birkin trying to fix a punt. Only leaking a little the punt bears him and Ursula out to a muddy little island. Here Birkin lets rip with his nihilistic misanthropy.

‘I abhor humanity, I wish it was swept away. It could go, and there would be no absolute loss, if every human being perished tomorrow. The reality would be untouched. Nay, it would be better. The real tree of life would then be rid of the most ghastly, heavy crop of Dead Sea Fruit, the intolerable burden of myriad simulacra of people, an infinite weight of mortal lies.’
‘So you’d like everybody in the world destroyed?’ said Ursula.
‘I should indeed.’
‘And the world empty of people?’
‘Yes truly.’

Ursula stands up for the importance of love (alas) while Birkin rudely dismisses it as just another human emotion, appropriate in some situations not in others. She starts to dislike and even to hate him, ‘priggish and detestable’.

Birkin says he’s renting rooms at the mill which is empty. If he could he’d chuck in his job (school inspector) and live there by himself like a hermit, away from the mankind he loathes so much. Hermione’s threatened to furnish the rooms for him. He tells Ursula it’s over between him and Hermione, not that there was anything anyway. Ursula tells him she hates Hermione anyway.

Chapter 12. Carpeting

Still at the mill they find Gerald and Hermione in the building itself. Hermione offers to help Birkin measure the rooms and then offers him a valuable carpet which he tries to reject. He hates being dominated and owned by her. Neither of them mention her attacking him with the paperweight.

The landlady of the mill, Mrs Salmon, makes tea for them all. Over tea Ursula brings up Gerald’s beastly behaviour to the mare at the level crossing which triggers a debate about whether animals have lives of their own or exist solely to serve human purposes.

Birkin comes in with the idea that horses have two wills, one which wants to submit utterly to man, another which rebels and wants to be completely free. Not uncontroversially, he goes on to say the same about women.

Hermione and Ursula wander of while the men bicker about horses, and agree that they both dislike Birkin’s anatomising and botanising, he’s always opening and dissecting rather than leave life be.

Chapter 13. Mino

The Mino is Birkin’s cat. Following their ‘clicking’ at the watermill, Ursula goes to visit Birkin at his flat. They almost immediately start arguing. Birkin insists he doesn’t believe in love but in something much deeper, in penetrating to your essential self and making a primeval bond with another essential self.

The argument is interrupted when Birkin’s tom cat goes through the French windows into the garden to confront a wild she-cat and cuffs her. Ursula yells at it to stop being a bully but Birkin sympathises with his cat’s wish to create a stability.

‘It is the desire to bring this female cat into a pure stable equilibrium, a transcendent and abiding rapport with the single male. Whereas without him, as you see, she is a mere stray, a fluffy sporadic bit of chaos.’

Back in their flat, they carry on their argument, Birkin demanding something far beyond love, Ursula unable to see it and saying he’s being obstinate and obtuse. Eventually she wins, beating him down and getting him to say ‘I love you’ in the classic style, embracing and kissing her.

Chapter 14. Water-party

The Criches hold a big midsummer party on the lake, with a motor launch and some rowing boats, all sporting lights and lanterns, the launch letting off fireworks, people laughing aboard the boats or strolling through the grounds or sitting in groups. The water side of things is being hosted by manly Gerald.

Ursula and Gudrun attend, walking there with their mother and father (Will and Anna from The Rainbow). They are intimidated by all these strangers and ask Gerald for a hamper and a canoe and paddle far away from the crowds. They beach it in a hidden spot, strip off and skinny dip, finally emerging, drying themselves. Then Ursula sings while Gudrun performs a eurhythmic dance.

Ursula interrupts this by pointing out some cattle have approached but undaunted Gudrun confronts them, dancing, outfaces them and makes them run off. At this point Gerald and Rupert appear, having tracked them down. Gerald and Gudrun go up the hillside in pursuit of the cattle leaving Ursula and Rupert to fall deeper in love.

Up the hill Gerald tells Gudrun that it’s dangerous to drive the Highland bullocks, she says ‘I suppose you think I’m afraid of you and your cattle, don’t you?’, Gerald asks her ‘why’ and, for answer, she hit him round the face. These passionate Bohemians.

Back at the lakeside the quartet clamber into two dinghies to head back and are laughing and joking when they hear shouts across the water. It’s quite dark now and someone has fallen overboard the launch. Gerald makes Gudrun row fast to the place, the skipper of the launch tells him about where the girl went overboard. She was followed by her young doctor boyfriend who jumped in to save her. Gerald strips down and jumps into the freezing water.

In brief, he dives again and again till he’s exhausted but can’t find them. Birkin pulls him out and rows him to the jetty, where he can barely stand. Gerald apologises to his father who’s appeared, and orders Birkin to drain the lake. So Rupert sets off with Ursula to the lock-keeper’s cottage where he gets the key to the sluices and laboriously opens them, releasing the lakes water into overflow channels. Slowly the levels sink.

Walking back, Birkin explains to Ursula his odd ideas about death, about needing to escape this life, slough it off like an old shell etc.

Unexpectedly in the middle of the road he stops and gives her exquisitely gentle and sensitive bunny kisses. A bit further down the road, not to be outdone, she pulls him towards her and gives him more traditional passionate kisses. They both experience an efflorescence of lust.

Then she goes home and Birkin goes back to the lake to find Gerald still supervising the search and the scouring of the water. He says he can’t sleep till they find the bodies which they eventually do. The young woman, Diana Crich, had panicked and thrown her arms round the boy’s neck so tight it choked him, and so they both drowned.

A page describes how, on that Sunday morning, word spreads throughout the colliery community and all the working class men, women and children are abuzz with the tragedy, imagining the feelings of the people at Shortlands, ‘the high home of the district.’

Chapter 15. Sunday Evening

All that day and into the evening Ursula waits for Birkin to come. She is now fully in love with him. But he doesn’t and as dusk comes she sinks into a deep depression, really deep, page after page thinking about dying and death and what comes after death, thus:

How beautiful, how grand and perfect death was, how good to look forward to. There one would wash off all the lies and ignominy and dirt that had been put upon one here, a perfect bath of cleanness and glad refreshment, and go unknown, unquestioned, unabased. After all, one was rich, if only in the promise of perfect death. It was a gladness above all, that this remained to look forward to, the pure inhuman otherness of death.

Eventually, at the children’s bedtime, he arrives, coming in out of the rain. He helps Ursula get a few of the younger children ready for bed. Then her mum and dad return from church. She is furious with him and gets into an argument about him neglecting his body, making it poorly (i.e. neglecting the battery by Hermione). When he finally leaves she is overcome by hatred of him. See what I mean by Lawrence characters veering from burning love to virulent hatred, from snogging Birkin on Sunday morning to hating his guts by Sunday night.

When he was gone Ursula felt such a poignant hatred of him, that all her brain seemed turned into a sharp crystal of fine hatred. Her whole nature seemed sharpened and intensified into a pure dart of hate. She could not imagine what it was. It merely took hold of her, the most poignant and ultimate hatred, pure and clear and beyond thought. She could not think of it at all, she was translated beyond herself. It was like a possession. She felt she was possessed. And for several days she went about possessed by this exquisite force of hatred against him. It surpassed anything she had ever known before, it seemed to throw her out of the world into some terrible region where nothing of her old life held good. She was quite lost and dazed, really dead to her own life.

Chapter 16. Man to Man

Birkin has a recurrence of illness. He lies in bed which allows Lawrence to give him a great fantasia of wild thoughts. Birkin hates lots of things. He hates the idea of married love, ‘horrible privacy of domestic and connubial satisfaction’. He hates sex because it is so limiting, it makes the sexes dependent on each other. He hates women’s need:

always so horrible and clutching, she had such a lust for possession, a greed of self-importance in love. She wanted to have, to own, to control, to be dominant.

In the ideology of love and sex men and women are considered fragments who can only be made whole by the other. Birkin dreams of a world where men and women are always whole and voluntarily associate as entirely whole.

Gerald comes to visit. The death of the young couple triggers a discussion about death, about the impact on Gerald’s family, then on whether the youngest daughter, Winifred, should be sent away to school.

Both men feel such a closeness that Birkin, bubbling with silly ideas, suggests they swear Blutbruderschaft like the old German knights used to, to swear to love each other all their lives. The novel is titled ‘Women in Love’ but the complicated love between Birkin and Gerald is just as central.

Birkin floats the idea of Gudrun being hired as a private tutor to young Winifred. Aha.

Chapter 17. The Industrial Magnate

After experiencing such closeness, Gerald now fades out of Gudrun’s mind. She dreams of getting away from England. She writes to friends in Munich and Petersburg to see if they could help or put her up.

Ursula and Gudrun visit a working woman who makes honey, ‘Mrs Kirk, a stout, pale, sharp-nosed woman, sly, honied, with something shrewish and cat-like beneath.’

Mrs Kirk was also a wet nurse to the Crich children and remembers what a little devil Gerald was. Any normal person might find this sweet and funny but Gudrun, with Lawrentian melodrama, has a fit, is overcome with rage, and wants the woman ‘ taken out at once and strangled’. Sometimes you feel like telling Lawrence’s characters to calm down, take a breath, count to 10 and everything will be better. But there’s no point. Everything about his world is ramped up to maximum. The spectacular insights into complex human nature, the moments of intense feeling, as well as the staggering nature poetry, all are part of the same package.

Up at Shortlands Mr Crich the patriarch, Thomas Crich, is slowly dying and Lawrence describes his retreat from the world and his own life. He had always treated his workers well, considering them as superior to him, closer to God. But in this had to fight his wife, Christiana, ‘like one of the great demons of hell’. Specifically, he encourages the poor to come and claim charity while Christiana, filled with hatred, drives them away like a witch. Something like hatred and terror exists between them (!)

The dying father’s last thoughts are to secure the wellbeing of Winifred, his youngest, favourite child, several pages on her wilful, anarchistic character. Meanwhile, as his father dies, Gerald feels more and more exposed. He’s managed the business well with his father as mentor and protector. Once he’s gone, Gerald will be fully exposed. We learn what wasn’t obvious up to now, which is that the last few months have changed Gerald: under the influence of 1) the death of Diana 2) Birkin’s visions and 3) Gudrun’s love he’s ceased to be a mechanical old Tory, doors have opened in his mind, he’s become confused.

The chapter goes back to describe Gerald’s boyhood, education, wanderlust, off to uni in Germany, serving in the war, exploring in the Amazon, before returning to take up the family business. He sees the world as instrumental to the will of man. This is the exact opposite of Birkin, who fantasises about nature freed by the complete extermination of man.

Man was the archgod of earth. His mind was obedient to serve his will. Man’s will was the absolute, the only absolute. (p.251)

Lawrence describes industrial strife, the colliers striking for more pay which led to lockouts which led to marches, riots, and soldiers being sent to the most troublesome pit, Whatmore, shots fired, a miner shot dead. This broke old Man Crich’s heart but excited Gerald, who was a boy.

In brief: as Gerald takes over the business he reforms it from top to bottom, sacking all the old managers, bringing in new professionals and equipment from America, scrapping all the perks and charities his father had introduced, overhauling it and making it a modern profitable business.

Lawrence presents it in moralising, general terms, as the triumph of the modern machine ethic over the old organic one. The triumph of Gerald’s heartless Fordian mechanical efficiency over his dying father’s old-fashioned Christian Victorian paternalism.

Chapter 18. Rabbit

Mr Crich agrees for Gudrun to come to Shortlands regularly as an art tutor for Winifred. The latter expects her to be yet another servant but quickly learns they are to be equals. They sketch Einnie’s Pekinese dog, Looloo. Gerald turns up after a few days and they realise they are both in love. The strange incident of them getting out the family’s huge pet rabbit from its hutch. It’s called Bismarck and is a monster, going into a frenzy wherein it badly scratches both Gudrun and Gerald before they get it to a courtyard with grass where it settles down to feed.

Chapter 19. Moony

Birkin goes to recuperate in the South of France leaving Ursula bereft.

She despised and detested the whole show. From the bottom of her heart, from the bottom of her soul, she despised and detested people, adult people.

She takes a walk up to the mill pond as night is falling and sees the big moon reflected in the water. Then it is smashed by someone throwing a stone in, and another, repeatedly breaking the moon into fragments. It is, of course, Birkin, who has come back without telling anyone.

She makes themselves known and they have a hell of an argument because she simply wants him to say I love you while he has a difficult-to-understand, rarefied theory of two people existing together without needy things like ‘I love you’ etc, he wants ‘the paradisal unknowing’. He mocks it as her war cry.

But then she reaches out her hand to his and their bodies take over. They kiss again and again and Birkin gives in and says ‘I love you’.

Next day Birkin has doubts about his entire attitude. It’s connected with a 2-page meditation on the truth revealed by the African sculptures in Halliday’s flat, some truth cold northerners have reached. Suddenly he knows he must propose to Ursula so goes to Beldover. She’s out so he explains his intentions to her father, Will Brangwen.

This goes badly. While they wait, Brangwen and Birkin get into an argument. Brangwen has raised his children Christian like him and doesn’t want to see the girls throw themselves away. Birkin is nettled by all of this. When Ursula arrives from the library it’s her father who tells her Birkin is there to propose, reducing Birkin to inaudible mumbling. This inauspicious manner leads Ursula to bridle and then accuse them both of trying to railroad her, at which Birkin gets up and leaves.

Over the next few days Ursula and Gudrun are very close and dissect Birkin’s character, a preacher. But then there’s a reaction against her sister and she finds herself pondering what kind of love she wants from Birkin.

She wanted unspeakable intimacies. She wanted to have him, utterly, finally to have him as her own, oh, so unspeakably, in intimacy. To drink him down—ah, like a life-draught… But only on condition that he, her lover, loved her absolutely, with complete self-abandon.

This is a central crux so worth lingering on:

She believed that love far surpassed the individual. He said the individual was more than love, or than any relationship. For him, the bright, single soul accepted love as one of its conditions, a condition of its own equilibrium. She believed that love was everything.

Birkin has a model of the self where love is one among many attributes which bring out and complete the self. For Ursula, love is bigger than all individuals and we must submit ourselves to it.

Chapter 20. Gladiatorial

The famous chapter describing Rupert and Gerald wrestling in front of the fire. Straight after walking out of Ursula’s house after the proposal fiasco, Birkin walks up to Shortlands, to find Gerald standing in front of the fire in his drawing room, bored to tears.

They get talking about how to alleviate boredom: there’s work, intoxicants, women or… Birkin suggests fighting. Gerald says he shared a house with a Japanese wrestling expert in Heidelberg and offers to show Birkin jiu-jitsu. So Gerald gets the butler to bring sandwiches and soda, to close the door and leave them undisturbed.

And so they strip naked and wrestle. Modern sensibilities look for the homoerotic in the scene, which may well be there, but Lawrence is primarily concerned with the spiritual or psychological aspects. The actual wrestling lasts just four paragraphs. In the fifth one Gerald lies back on the carpet exhausted, faints and Birkin passes out over his body. When Birkin comes to, he props himself up and his hand accidentally touches Gerald’s, who seizes it. A strong male clasp. Gerald asks if this was the Bruderschaft Birkin wanted. It’s certainly something.

They get dressed (Gerald nips upstairs to dress in a luxury dressing gown) before settling in front of the fire to eat the sandwiches the butler brought. Birkin tells him he came hotfoot from proposing to Ursula. He loves her. Which triggers them to discuss the nature of love and for Gerald to worry that he might never find it.

Chapter 21. Threshold

Gudrun goes to London to attend a show of her artwork. On her return Winifred has a bouquet for her. Gudrun goes to sit with the dying old man. He arranges for a stable to be converted into a studio for Winifred and Gudrun to work in.

Birkin arrives driving his car to collect Winifred, Gudrun and Gerald. The two latter sit in the back and ripely satirise Birkin’s ideas about an association of man and woman which leaves them separate and distinct, as stars. Gudrun and Gerald agree they want passionate love between committed partners. (Gudrun gives her opinion of marriage being a purely social form – ‘Marriage is a social arrangement, I take it, and has nothing to do with the question of love’ – which I imagine was shocking in the late 1910s.)

Chapter 22. Woman to Woman

Only at this point do we learn Birkin was driving Gerald to the railway station, then taking the other two on to his place for tea before disappearing off somewhere. Hermione turns up and she and Ursula have a long dissection of Birkin’s character, Hermione strongly advising Ursula not to marry him.

Like the rabbit in his chapter, the star of this one is Rupert’s cat which Hermione feeds cream and speaks to in Italian. Hermione is of that class of gentlewoman who know Italy, and Florence in particular, so exquisitely well. Her dear mama died in Florence. (Cf A Room with a View.)

Chapter 23. Excurse

Next day is a half holiday at the school so Birkin calls by in his car and takes Ursula for a spin. He hands her a tissue which turns out to be full of rings he’s giving her. But this has the unintended consequence of making her feel like she’s being bought, making her very angry and she launches into pages and pages criticising him, calling him a perverse death-eater (p.346) before getting him to stop the car, throwing the rings at him, getting out and walking off. He stoops to pick the rings out of the mud and acknowledges some of her criticisms are true.

Then she comes back. She asks for the rings again. Everything which made the fight, disappears and now they are both soppily in love and do lots of kissing. Get back in the car and drive to Southwell, home of Southwell Minster and have a grand high tea at The Saracens Head. Here, in a scene which would be easy to over-interpret, she kneels on the hearth

And she was drawn to him strangely, as in a spell. Kneeling on the hearth-rug before him, she put her arms round his loins, and put her face against his thigh. Riches! Riches! She was overwhelmed with a sense of a heavenful of riches.
‘We love each other,’ she said in delight.
‘More than that,’ he answered, looking down at her with his glimmering, easy face.
Unconsciously, with her sensitive fingertips, she was tracing the back of his thighs, following some mysterious life-flow there. She had discovered something, something more than wonderful, more wonderful than life itself. It was the strange mystery of his life-motion, there, at the back of the thighs, down the flanks. It was a strange reality of his being, the very stuff of being, there in the straight downflow of the thighs. It was here she discovered him one of the sons of God such as were in the beginning of the world, not a man, something other, something more.

There’s more than a page of her kneeling and tracing the outline of his loins and feeling his primal power. Very easy to give a sexual interpretation to. Utterly entranced, he decides they must both quit their jobs and travel. In a mad enthusiasm they both write letters to their bosses quitting with immediate notice. Birkin posts hers first so they don’t arrive at the same time. I smell trouble.

Then back into the car and touring the lanes absolutely transformed by total love. He feels like an Egyptian Pharaoh. They end up driving through Sherwood Forest, then stop at a circle of grass near a stream. It is darkest night. He throws down a rug, they strip off and make love, the first sex in the book, described in high mystical magical terms.

She had her desire of him, she touched, she received the maximum of unspeakable communication in touch, dark, subtle, positively silent, a magnificent gift and give again, a perfect acceptance and yielding, a mystery, the reality of that which can never be known, vital, sensual reality that can never be transmuted into mind content, but remains outside, living body of darkness and silence and subtlety, the mystic body of reality. She had her desire fulfilled. He had his desire fulfilled. For she was to him what he was to her, the immemorial magnificence of mystic, palpable, real otherness. (p.361)

Chapter 24. Death and Love

Old Thomas Crich is a long time a-dying. And the impact on his son, Gerald? Characteristically Lawrentian hyperbole.

Day by day he felt more and more like a bubble filled with darkness, round which whirled the iridescence of his consciousness, and upon which the pressure of the outer world, the outer life, roared vastly.

He takes to hanging round the studio watching Gudrun. One day he asks her to stay on into the evening for dinner. As he explains how he is suffering, the void his father’s illness makes him feel, she feels powerfully attracted. A strong soldierly type obviously suffering brings out the mothering instinct.

Interlude when Gerald’s cold mother comes down, tells him not to take it all on himself, then departs. Gerald insists on walking Gudrun down the drive to the gates. He puts his arms round her and draws her near and she melts. Under the railway bridge, where the colliers snog their sweethearts, they kiss:

So she relaxed, and seemed to melt, to flow into him, as if she were some infinitely warm and precious suffusion filling into his veins, like an intoxicant. Her arms were round his neck, he kissed her and held her perfectly suspended, she was all slack and flowing into him, and he was the firm, strong cup that receives the wine of her life…

But then she checks herself, as all women do; you don’t want to be thought ‘too easy of winning’.

How much more of him was there to know? Ah much, much, many days harvesting for her large, yet perfectly subtle and intelligent hands upon the field of his living, radio-active body. Ah, her hands were eager, greedy for knowledge. But for the present it was enough, enough, as much as her soul could bear. (p.375)

Gudrun doesn’t come next day because she has a cold. The day after, Gerald is sitting by his father’s bed when the old man gasps and arches and coughs up a gout of blood and dies. The mother makes a weird speech, telling her children none of them must look so beautiful and young on their deathbeds. Next day Gudrun goes to Winifred and the studio where Gerald pays a meek visit and shares their coffee.

The funeral is barely described. Instead the three horrible days when Gerald feels like a prisoner chained over an abyss of darkness. On the third evening he can’t bear it any more and goes for a vast walk in the darkness, which eventually brings him to the graveyard where his father’s grave is, and then he conceives a mad notion of seeing Gudrun. She is the only one who can save him.

So he asks directions from a drunk miner emerging from the town pub at chucking-out time (10pm) and makes his way to the Brangwen house. In a coincidence he arrives just as Birkin and Ursula step out, and hides from them in the shadows. Then he sneaks into the house – father William is asleep in the living room, his wife is in their bedroom – sneaks on tiptoe upstairs. There’s a comic digression when he figures he has the right room, sneaks over to the bedroom only to find the sleeping form of a boy, one of the brothers and has to tiptoe back out onto the landing.

Long story short, he finds Gudrun’s bedroom, wakes her. At first terrified, she locks her door, makes him take off his wet things and lets him have sex with her. He falls deeply asleep, as men do, while she lays for hours in the dark wondering what has just happened, what it means, remembering all her life up to this point.

She waits till the church bell rings 5 o’clock, then wakes him and urges him to go. In fact she has a nausea of him, needs him to be gone.

Chapter 25. Marriage or Not

Birkin has taken out a marriage licence but Ursula keeps delaying. She is in the third week of notice to the school. Christmas is coming. Gerald jokes that maybe he and Gudrun should hurry up so they can make it a joint wedding. Birkin isn’t sure marriage will suit Gerald.

Gerald and Birkin compare theories of marriage. For Birkin it is a social convention which denotes the partnership of free and equal lovers. Gerald has a more fatal view.

Marriage was not the committing of himself into a relationship with Gudrun. It was a committing of himself in acceptance of the established world, he would accept the established order, in which he did not livingly believe, and then he would retreat to the underworld for his life. (p.398)

Chapter 26. A Chair

Birkin and Ursula go to the flea market. They buy a beautiful old wooden chair but then argue about whether the present is accursed (Birkin) or the past was just as crudely materialistic (Ursula). This triggers Birkin into expressing Lawrence’s dogma of never having a home, of permanent travel.

‘The truth is, we don’t want things at all,’ he replied. ‘The thought of a house and furniture of my own is hateful to me.’
This startled her for a moment. Then she replied:
‘So it is to me. But one must live somewhere.’
‘Not somewhere – anywhere,’ he said. “One should just live anywhere – not have a definite place. I don’t want a definite place. As soon as you get a room, and it is complete, you want to run from it. Now my rooms at the Mill are quite complete, I want them at the bottom of the sea. It is a horrible tyranny of a fixed milieu, where each piece of furniture is a commandment-stone… You must leave your surroundings sketchy, unfinished, so that you are never contained, never confined, never dominated from the outside.’

Ursula had earlier noticed a working class couple, the woman heavily pregnant, sifting through the junk on display. On an impulse she decides to give them the chair they’ve just bought. Lawrence dwells on the pair’s working class appearance, the woman short and stocky, the man thin like a rat. The repeated word is ‘slinking’. In fact this is the longest description of working class people in the book. Gerald takes direction from a drunk miner. Working class women mock Ursula and Gudrun on their way to the wedding. There are the servants, of course. This is the longest description of proles and the key words are ‘slinking’ and ‘rat’.

Our couple find the whole place grim and miserable and low and wretched, ‘cold, somehow small, crowded, and like the end of the world.’ They catch a tram and agree that they need to get away, to wander the world.

‘And we will wander about on the face of the earth,” he said, “and we’ll look at the world beyond just this bit.’ (p.408)

Chapter 27. Flitting

At dinner, Ursula tells her family she’s getting married tomorrow. Her father is furious at not being told, not being given any notice. She says it’s her life, he says she owes her family and her parents the information. She defies him, makes him furious and he smacks her. She leaves the room, goes upstairs, packs her bags, comes downstairs, says goodbye, marches out of the house, down to the station, catches a train to where Birkin is staying, walks past his landlady into his room. (Birkin appears to be living in rented rooms as well as sometimes at the Mill which Hermione so wanted to decorate for him, thus retaining her hold over him.)

Rupert is non-plussed but reckons something like this was inevitable, embraces her and tells her he loves her. That is the reassurance she needs, but she can’t really see how deeply she is rescuing him from the fallen world, from his own doubts and incompleteness. They marry the next day (p.417). The wedding ceremony is not described in the slightest because it doesn’t matter to Rupert, Gudrun or Lawrence.

A few days at the Mill, while Rupert is away, Gerald and Ursula discuss marriage. He says she looks well on it. He asks her whether he should propose to Gudrun. They both have their doubts. Later when Rupert comes home, they agree that Gudrun is more the mistress type than the wife type, and Gerald a born lover rather than faithful husband. But Gerald floats the idea that they should all go away somewhere, somewhere abroad, as a foursome, which Ursula loves.

The Brangwen family have moved out of the house in Beldover. Will Brangwen needed to move to Nottingham for his work. They leave Ursula’s belongings behind for her to collect. She and Ursula walk over one afternoon. They’re both appalled by how bleak the empty house is. Birkin shows up with his car and shares the general horror at the bleak empty rooms.

Birkin drives Ursula back to the Mill with him, dropping Gudrun at the cottage she’s now renting in Willey Green. She watches them go, haunted by their happiness. Next day she goes to the Mill and finds Ursula alone, asks if she doesn’t think Gerald’s suggestion they all go away together is a cheek. Gudrun thinks the menfolk are treating her like a chattel, like a type (French for ‘trollop’).

Chapter 28. Gudrun in the Pompadour

The trip abroad begins. Gudrun and Gerald, being ready first, set off via London and Paris to Innsbruck, where they would meet Ursula and Birkin. In London they stayed one night. They went to the music-hall, and afterwards to the Pompadour Café. Gudrun hates this place because all the tight little groups of artists and bohemians hang out here.

Minette is there, the girl from chapter 6 who was pregnant and slept with Gerald in order to get back her target, Halliday. She comes over from a group of the gang and asks him to join them but he suavely refuses. She says just enough to indicate to Gudrun that she’s one of his mistresses.

The bohemian set (Halliday, Maxim, Julian and Minette) start slagging off Birkin, then Halliday finds a letter to him written by Rupert, full of his ripest pontificating, and reads it out loud to general ridicule. Gudrun is worked into a frenzy by their mockery, gets up, walks over to their table, politely asks if she may read the letter, takes it, turns and walks out of the cafe. The others can’t believe what is happening then start to boo. This makes her walk all the slower and more superior. Outside she hails a cab as Gerald catches up with her, thinking her magnificent. Gudrun thinks they are ‘dogs’ and calls Rupert a fool ‘to give himself away to such canaille.’

(According to Anthony Burgess’s biography of Lawrence, this scene is closely based on fact. The setting was the Café Royal where Lawrence’s enemy Philip Heseltine, started reading out Lawrence’s poems from the volume Amore in a mocking voice, and so infuriated Katherine Mansfield that she snatched the book out of his hands and stormed out, followed by her embarrassed husband, John Middleton Murray, Burgess page 97.)

Chapter 29. Continental

By far the longest chapter, 60 pages long, almost a novella.

Description of Birkin and Ursula’s voyage across the Channel, curled up in the prow of the ship in the absolute darkness. They disembark in Ostend by night. In a dream they take their bags through customs to the railway station, grab a sandwich and horrible coffee (nothing changes) then onto the train which travels through Bruges, Ghent, Brussels, through Luxembourg, through Alsace-Lorraine, through Metz, arriving at Basle. Overnight in a hotel, then another train to Zürich and then their final destination, Innsbruck.

They catch an open sleigh to the hotel where they see Gudrun. Ursula and Gudrun go to her hotel room to gossip, talking about mutual friends in Paris. Then everyone dresses and comes down for dinner where they agree how wonderful it is to be out of England, a country with the damper permanently on.

Next morning they take a small train to Hohenhausen, up in the snow, and then take sledges higher, higher into the snowy mountains, arriving at another, more remote hotel. In the hotel room, Gudrun is overcome, looking out the window at the snowy landscape and mountains she cries and Gerald embraces her.

They go down for coffee and cake, delicious. There are ten other guests, all German. They are introduced to the group who are listening to an odd man-child give a performance of the Cologne accent. When he’s finished Ursula is invited to sing the song, Annie Lowrie, with Gudrun accompanying her on the piano.

After dinner Ursula wants to go out into the darkness. She is intoxicated by the wonderful cold and the primal scenery. When they return to the hotel lounge, the Reunionsaal, they discover the other guests dancing the Schuhplatteln, the Tyrolese dance of the clapping hands and tossing the partner in the air at the crisis, with jumping and clapping, to the music of three zithers.

To no-one’s surprise, Gerald quickly learns the steps and becomes a demon. He dances with the Professor’s youngest daughter who is incandescent with awe at this Real Man holding and twirling her. Gudrun is lusted after by one of the young men who is to shy to ask to dance with her. Twas ever thus.

In their bedroom, Gudrun has a panic attack about Gerald, is completely alienated from him. Luckily he doesn’t notice. She mocks his dancing with the young girl, he doesn’t understand her. They sleep separately and she wakes superior to him. Looking at him asleep, she realises he can solve any practical problem, all challenges fall before his will. She imagines marrying him, supporting him as he becomes a Conservative MP, goes into politics, becomes Prime Minister.

But then she mocks her own girlish dreams. Who cares about politics? It’s all so old. And somehow, through this interior monologue, she becomes convinced to marry him. She wakes him with kisses, telling him he’s convinced her and he doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

The first days passed in an ecstasy of physical motion, sleighing, skiing, skating, moving in an intensity of speed and white light that surpassed life itself, and carried the souls of the human beings beyond into an inhuman abstraction of velocity and weight and eternal, frozen snow. (p.473)

Loerke

One day they’re snowed in. Gudrun and Ursula get to know Loerke, the puny little sculptor, who tells them his backstory, a broken home and deprived background, hitching to Italy, learning to sculpt the hard way. Now he is a professional with well-paid commissions and is working on a frieze in granite for a new factory in Germany. He gives an impassioned defence of art beautifying new industrial buildings that has a Bauhaus ring. Anyway, it puts Gudrun’s funny little clay models in the shade.

Lawrence’s antisemitism

Gerald and Rupert both dislike Loerke and the girls’ interest in him. Birkin, as always the most virulent and malicious, gives an extended slagging of Loerke which ends up with an unexpected, unnecessary and dismaying antisemitism. I could leave it at that but I’ll quote the entire passage so you can see for yourself the vehemence of Lawrence’s dislike and racism.

‘What do the women find so impressive in that little brat?’ Gerald asked.
‘God alone knows,’ replied Birkin, ‘unless it’s some sort of appeal he makes to them, which flatters them and has such a power over them.’
Gerald looked up in surprise.
‘Does he make an appeal to them?’ he asked.
‘Oh yes,’ replied Birkin. ‘He is the perfectly subjected being, existing almost like a criminal. And the women rush towards that, like a current of air towards a vacuum.’
‘Funny they should rush to that,’ said Gerald.
‘Makes one mad, too,’ said Birkin. ‘But he has the fascination of pity and repulsion for them, a little obscene monster of the darkness that he is.’
Gerald stood still, suspended in thought.
‘What do women want, at the bottom?’ he asked.
Birkin shrugged his shoulders.
‘God knows,’ he said. ‘Some satisfaction in basic repulsion, it seems to me. They seem to creep down some ghastly tunnel of darkness, and will never be satisfied till they’ve come to the end.’
Gerald looked out into the mist of fine snow that was blowing by. Everywhere was blind today, horribly blind.
‘And what is the end?’ he asked.
Birkin shook his head.
‘I’ve not got there yet, so I don’t know. Ask Loerke, he’s pretty near. He is a good many stages further than either you or I can go.’
‘Yes, but stages further in what?’ cried Gerald, irritated.
Birkin sighed, and gathered his brows into a knot of anger.
‘Stages further in social hatred,’ he said. ‘He lives like a rat, in the river of corruption, just where it falls over into the bottomless pit. He’s further on than we are. He hates the ideal more acutely. He hates the ideal utterly, yet it still dominates him. I expect he is a Jew—or part Jewish.’
‘Probably,’ said Gerald.
‘He is a gnawing little negation, gnawing at the roots of life.’
‘But why does anybody care about him?’ cried Gerald.
‘Because they hate the ideal also, in their souls. They want to explore the sewers, and he’s the wizard rat that swims ahead.’ (p.481)

Not a good look, as the Yanks say.

So Loerke is also a sculptor. As she looks at his pieces and hears his stories, Gudrun is beguiled. Loerke shows them a photo of a sculpture of a young girl sitting on a horse. Ursula says the horse is oddly distorted which triggers a little harangue.

‘It is a work of art, it is a picture of nothing, of absolutely nothing. It has nothing to do with anything but itself, it has no relation with the everyday world of this and other, there is no connection between them, absolutely none, they are two different and distinct planes of existence, and to translate one into the other is worse than foolish, it is a darkening of all counsel, a making confusion everywhere. Do you see, you must not confuse the relative work of action, with the absolute world of art. That you must not do.’ (p.484)

They all have different reactions. Gudrun agrees on the difference between the artist and the work, but Ursula insists the horse and the girl are reflections of the artist’s horrible personality. Gerald strolls up, takes a look at the photo and, characteristically, says he likes the look of the girl, Gudrun saying ‘wouldn’t he just’. But in a further development, when Loerke tells them the girl was an art student Gudrun immediately leaps to the conclusion that she was a naive and innocent young girl from a good family exploited and used by her wicked male teacher. #metoo. The sisterhood. As outraged by masculine abuse in 1920 as 2020.

But there’s more. Loerke freely admits he had to regularly smack and hit the girl before she’d sit still in this pose. And then, to make himself even more despicable, says that he only likes his models young:

‘I don’t like them any bigger, any older. Then they are beautiful, at sixteen, seventeen, eighteen – after that, they are no use to me.’

Furious, Ursula goes out into the snowy night and suddenly realises she hates it. Five pages back, they were all snow gods and snow artists, now, with Lawrentian abruptness, she’s shifted to the other extreme. She wants to go south to warmth and olive groves. She goes back into the hotel and finds Birkin in their room, reading and tells him. He laughingly agrees.

Next day they tell the other couple and can tell Gerald and Gudrun are relieved to hear of their departure. The men have been riling each other a bit. The two genders have last meetings. When Ursula explains that she and Birkin want to continue moving on, into new freedoms, Gudrun irritates her by saying that wherever you go you’ll always be with the same person, ‘only to secure oneself in one’s illusions.’

The men chat and Birkin asks Gerald when he’ll leave and Gerald replies maybe never. Maybe he’ll never go back to England. The sledge arrives, picks up Birkin and Ursula and off they go, leaving Gerald and Gudrun dwindling in the snow, waving.

Chapter 30. Snowed Up

The second longest chapter at 38 pages. Taken together, the two ‘abroad’ chapters make about 100 pages.

Left to themselves, Gudrun and Gerald fall into a fierce and bitter war for supremacy. They rage and argue. She moves into a separate bedroom. They fight all the time. She begs him to tell her he loves her. He feels like he has been ripped open. He has fantasies of murdering her. They both go mad.

While Gerald’s off skiing, Gudrun become friendlier with Loerke over their shared aesthetic, particularly the basic principle that the artist and the art exist in different realms.

The suggestion of primitive art was their refuge, and the inner mysteries of sensation their object of worship. Art and Life were to them the Reality and the Unreality.

One time Gerald is bullying Loerke in argument like an arrogant Englishman and when Loerke turns to her for appeal, she angrily tells him to stop calling her Mrs Crich. She is not Mrs Crich. She is not married. A light goes on in Loerke’s eye and Gerald is mortified.

Perversely he is so self contained about this insult that she loves him and goes to his bedroom that night to have sex, gladly. ‘And she had extreme pleasure of him.’ But she withholds her soul. Any couple eventually reach the end of fleshly pleasure and everything is just repetition. Gudrun unconsciously knows that the next step, for her, is alliance with Loerke. Loerke is very patient and encourages long conversations about Mozart and Goethe et al, to win her over.

She and Gerald have a massive argument when Gerald asks her what on earth she sees in Loerke and she bluntly tells him the little German understands women and is not a fool. Stunned, Gerald asks if that is the end of their relationship. She says either of them are free to leave at any time. For some reason the bluntness of all this arouses Gerald, she sees it, is disgusted, and walks out.

And so on. After a long campaign Loerke subtly suggests that she might go with him to his studio in Dresden. Not to be his mistress. But because he admires her company and her intelligence. She is flattered though a little chagrined that he doesn’t flatter her beauty.

Gerald is out all day skiing, feeling king of the mountains up in the high slopes. He doesn’t want to come back to the hotel and people. As soon as he sees Gudrun he fantasises about murdering her, the sheer pleasure of strangling the life out of her. They dine and later, in his room, she says the experiment is over. They gave it a try and it failed. Why, he asks. Because you cannot love, and I could never love you.

At this Gerald feels the pure desire to kill go down his arms and into his hands and turns towards he but, sensing his rage, she nips out the room, across to hers and locks the door. Cue pages of her pondering her whole life and above all the patheticness of men, of Gerald, Birkin, all of them, of the mining business with all its managers. Babies, all of them. And the sheer tedium of doing the same thing day after day. Gerald stays up all night reading, mortally afraid of lying sleepless in the dark.

Next morning over breakfast she announces she’ll be leaving the following day. Gerald says he’ll make the necessary arrangements then goes out for a day’s skiing. Gudrun feels wonderfully empowered. The long vigil and pondering her life situation has clarified everything. She lets Loerke take her out tobogganing even though he looks like a ridiculous pixie. He doesn’t take the tobogganing very seriously which she finds an immense relief from Gerald’s intense seriousness about all activities. Lightness and irony are what she needs.

At the end of the day he crashes them in the snow, laughing, then produces a coffee thermos, some Schnapps and biscuits. They are merrily discussing where Gudrun will go the next day – she doesn’t know and doesn’t care – when Gerald looms whitely up out of the snow.

Crack! Gerald punches Loerke aside, then punches him again. Gudrun brings her fist down on his face and chest which prompts him to turn and, finally, fulfil his deepest wish, to strangle her to death. His hands grip her throat and strangle the life out of her as she thrashes and then starts to go limp which is the moment when Loerke comes to himself and makes one of his sarcastic remarks, in French: ‘Monsieur! Quand vous aurez fini –’ ‘Sir, when you have quite finished…’ and the mockery of it brings Gerald back to his senses.

Not in horror, but futility. What is he doing? Who cares if this silly woman lives or dies? Oh what’s the point? And he drops Gudrun, looks round in a daze, then stumbles off into the snow. He has had enough. He wants to sleep. He wants it to end. He climbs higher and higher into the land of sheer cliffs and rockslides. He slips in a snowslide but that doesn’t wake his daze. Onwards and upwards. He comes across a crucifix almost buried in the snow and is overcome with terror that he is going to be murdered, looking all round him in his fear, raising his arm to ward off the blow. And thus walking he slips over the edge of a deep bowl,

surrounded by sheer slopes and precipices, out of which rose a track that brought one to the top of the mountain. But he wandered unconsciously, till he slipped and fell down, and as he fell something broke in his soul, and immediately he went to sleep. (p.533)

Chapter 31. Exeunt

Gerald died. They bring the body back to the hotel. Next morning they bring the body back to the hotel. A woman comes to tell Gudrun. She is amazed by how cold and unaffected she is. Like Mersault and his mother. She finds Loerke in the main room but he is not pleased to see her. She telegrams to Birkin and Ursula who arrive the next day but she is cold with them. In fact after five minutes the sisters have nothing to say to each other.

The final pages focus on Birkin. He makes all the practical arrangements and deals with the authorities. He visits the frozen corpse then treks up the hill to the snowy bowl where Gerald dies, then comes back to the hotel and confronts the corpse again. This time he breaks down in hysterical tears, and Ursula sees him. Birkin is distraught that Gerald didn’t love him. He says he offered him his love but he didn’t take it. He remembers their hands clutching each other as they came round from the famous wrestling scene. If only that moment had lasted, if only Gerald had loved him, maybe he would still be alive.

Birkin and Ursula and one of Gerald’s brothers accompany the body back to England where the family insists he be buried. Ursula and Birkin remove to the Mill and live very quietly. (Gudrun has gone to Dresden and ‘writes no particulars of herself.’)

On the last pages of this vast book, Ursula and Birkin argue. She says, Aren’t I enough for you and he says, No. You are all women to me but I wanted something more, I wanted a male kind of love, I wanted one true friend, and I had him but he rejected me. Ursula says she doesn’t believe Birkin’s notion of an eternal love between men, ‘It’s an obstinacy, a theory, a perversity’ and he replies ‘I don’t believe that’ and that’s the end of the book.

A war novel?

Lawrence rewrote the novel to achieve its final form, between 1915 and 1917, the central years of the First World War. In his foreword to the American edition, he said he wanted to the timeline of the novel to be unfixed. But critics at the time and ever since have pointed out the tremendous bitterness observable in many of the characters – most extreme in Birkin’s visions of exterminating humanity altogether – radiate the bitterness and anger and disillusionment which Lawrence was hardly the only one to experience during these years. If Birkin repeatedly express this, it is Gerald who in a sense acts it out, overcome with psychopathy at the novel’s bitter end. And the carrying of the body of a young Englishman, killed abroad, back to his home in England was, of course, something experienced by hundreds of thousands of families.

Lawrence at one point considered titling the book Dies Irae, Days of Anger.

Flouting conventional morality

‘The old ideals are dead as nails – nothing there. It seems to me there remains only this perfect union with a woman – sort of ultimate marriage – and there isn’t anything else.’
‘And you mean if there isn’t the woman, there’s nothing?’ said Gerald.
‘Pretty well that – seeing there’s no God.’ (Chapter 5, on the train to London)

Just to note the obvious:

1. None of the characters seem to believe in God, Christian teaching or Christian morality. The girls’ father, William, tells Birkin he expects it of his daughters, but nobody else even mentions it.

2. None of the quartet are bothered by pre-marital sex in the slightest. There’s nothing about sin, hell and damnation, nothing at all. It’s assessed solely on whether it is right for the individual and their relationship i.e. the ‘modern’ view.

3. Even marriage, which they all enter into, none of them really care about much. It’s a purely social convention which cements what has already been agreed between free individuals.

GUDRUN: ‘Marriage is a social arrangement, I take it, and has nothing to do with the question of love.’ (Chapter 21)

BIRKIN: ‘I’m not interested in legal marriage, one way or another. It’s a mere question of convenience.’ (p.396)

In fact Birkin has a violent objection to traditional ideas of marriage.

‘Marriage in the old sense seems to me repulsive. Égoïsme à deux is nothing to it. It’s a sort of tacit hunting in couples: the world all in couples, each couple in its own little house, watching its own little interests, and stewing in its own little privacy—it’s the most repulsive thing on earth.’ (p.397)

In fact, you can easily misread him to be attacking the institution of marriage which, of course, for conservatives then and now, was sacred:

‘You’ve got to take down the love-and-marriage ideal from its pedestal. We want something broader. I believe in the additional perfect relationship between man and man – additional to marriage.’
‘I can never see how they can be the same,’ said Gerald.
‘Not the same – but equally important, equally creative, equally sacred, if you like.’ (p.397)

4. And experimentation. Why not go whole hog? Here’s Gudrun fired up by the wild dancing in the Reunionsaal at the Tyrolese inn:

They might do as they liked – this she realised as she went to sleep. How could anything that gave one satisfaction be excluded? What was degrading? Who cared? Degrading things were real, with a different reality. And he [Birkin] was so unabashed and unrestrained. Wasn’t it rather horrible, a man who could be so soulful and spiritual, now to be so – she balked at her own thoughts and memories: then she added – so bestial? So bestial, they two! – so degraded! She winced. But after all, why not? She exulted as well. Why not be bestial, and go the whole round of experience? She exulted in it. She was bestial. How good it was to be really shameful! There would be no shameful thing she had not experienced. Yet she was unabashed, she was herself. Why not? She was free when she knew everything, and no dark shameful things were denied her. (p.464)

You can see how old-fashioned moralists and social guardians would be outraged. For all these reasons Lawrence couldn’t find a publisher for the book in the UK and when it was, finally, published in the US, in 1920, it was to subscribers only. Such was the threat and illegality of what to us now appear completely harmless, indeed anodyne, opinions.

Summary of people and places

Ursula Brangwen

26, class teacher at Willey Green Grammar School. Always a bit flustered, always rushing in too soon. Greenish eyes. Pairs with Rupert Birkin. Favourite phrase: why not? which drives her father mad.

Gudrun Brangwen

25, artist and model. Dark hair. In London at art school she got to know the extended networks of Bohemia. The more conventionally beautiful of the two. Calm and confident on top, profoundly restless underneath. Ursula’s nickname for her is ‘Prune’. Pairs with Gerald Crich.

Rupert Birkin

‘Instead of chopping yourself down to fit the world, chop the world down to fit yourself.’ (p.230)

School inspector. Tall, thin, tired misanthrope. Wishes all humanity could be exterminated. Prophet of individualism (someone should write a book comparing Wilde and Lawrence as proponents of unflinching absolute individualism.) An inveterate lecturer and preacher:

‘He isn’t sympathetic, he wants to dictate.’ (p.367)

Here’s Maxim slagging him off in chapter 27:

‘He is a megalomaniac, of course, it is a form of religious mania. He thinks he is the Saviour of man.’ (p.433)

An emotional chameleon, ‘he is so changeable and unsure of himself’ or, as Ursula puts it late on:

‘He says he wants me to accept him non-emotionally, and finally – I really don’t know what he means. He says he wants the demon part of himself to be mated – physically – not the human being. You see he says one thing one day, and another the next – and he always contradicts himself – ‘
‘And always thinks about himself, and his own dissatisfaction,’ said Hermione slowly. (p.330)

Rupert is generally agreed to be a self portrait by Lawrence in which case he was painfully aware of his own shortcomings. Here’s Hermione dissecting him:

‘He is so uncertain, so unstable — he wearies, and then reacts. I couldn’t tell you what his reactions are. I couldn’t tell you the agony of them. That which he affirms and loves one day — a little latter he turns on it in a fury of destruction. He is never constant, always this awful, dreadful reaction. Always the quick change from good to bad, bad to good.’ (p.332)

At the start of the novel Birkin is going out with Hermione, under her thumb. Takes a long time to shake her off. The growing attraction between him and Ursula entails prolonged rivalry between Ursula and Hermione. After much arguing they finally surrender to each other and, on page 360, have sex in Sherwood Forest.

Gerald always feels a bit superior and protective towards him, thinks him ‘amazingly clever, but incurably innocent’. They stay in the London Soho flat together. They wrestle naked together (chapter 20).

Gerald Crich

31, coalmine owner, superb physical specimen, fair hair and moustache, blue eyes. His ‘gleaming blondness.’ Imperious, ‘very good-looking and self-contained.’ Former officer in the Army till he resigned his commission. Explored the Amazon so occasionally tells stories about the Indians. Compelled to become head of the family coalmining business as his father falls ill, Gerald clings onto his boyhood dreams of being Odysseus. In his imagination:

The world was really a wilderness where one hunted and swam and rode. He rebelled against all authority. Life was a condition of savage freedom.

Tries to quell the mare he’s riding as the colliery train goes by, to Ursula and Gudrun’s horror. Wrestles naked with Rupert in front of the library fire (chapter 20).

Hermione Roddice

A friend of the Criches, ‘a tall, slow, reluctant woman with a weight of fair hair and a pale, long face.’ Upper class and used to dismissing people when she’s lost interest. Flat bosom. Long, grave, downward-looking face. Heavy, drugged, shadowy eyelids. Grey eyes. Her musing sing-song voice. Needs to dominate men: ‘It was always the same, this joy in power she manifested, peculiarly in power over any male being.’ (p.337)

The book starts with her going out with her partnered with Birkin, who is restless to escape her domination but it takes half the book for him to become free enough to commit to Ursula.

Beldover

The small colliery town in the Midlands where the Brangwen family live. Gudrun, fresh back from living in London, is repelled by its ‘amorphous ugliness’, the high street ‘part shops, part dwelling-houses, utterly formless and sordid,’, ‘the whole sordid gamut of pettiness, the long amorphous, gritty street’, ‘this shapeless, barren ugliness’, ‘the insufferable torture of these ugly, meaningless people, this defaced countryside’. In chapter 9 Lawrence gives a vivid depiction:

This was the world of powerful, underworld men who spent most of their time in the darkness. In their voices she could hear the voluptuous resonance of darkness, the strong, dangerous underworld, mindless, inhuman. They sounded also like strange machines, heavy, oiled. The voluptuousness was like that of machinery, cold and iron.

And the party atmosphere on Friday nights:

It was dark, the market-place was hot with kerosene flares, which threw a ruddy light on the grave faces of the purchasing wives, and on the pale abstract faces of the men. The air was full of the sound of criers and of people talking, thick streams of people moved on the pavements towards the solid crowd of the market. The shops were blazing and packed with women, in the streets were men, mostly men, miners of all ages. Money was spent with almost lavish freedom.

Gudrun perceives Gerald as ‘her escape from the heavy slough of the pale, underworld, automatic colliers.’

Shortlands

Home of the Crich family. ‘It was a long, low old house, a sort of manor farm, that spread along the top of a slope just beyond the narrow little lake of Willey Water. Shortlands looked across a sloping meadow that might be a park, because of the large, solitary trees that stood here and there, across the water of the narrow lake, at the wooded hill that successfully hid the colliery valley beyond, but did not quite hide the rising smoke. Nevertheless, the scene was rural and picturesque, very peaceful…’

‘The panting and rattling of the coal mines could always be heard at Shortlands…’ (p.249) The drive is a mile long. ‘The dark drive that ran between close-cut hedges through sloping meadows’ (p.370).

Willey Water

‘The narrow little lake of Willey Water’, where Diana Crich and her lover drown at the annual water party (Chapter 14).

Based on real people

Publication of ‘Women in Love’ was delayed not only because publishers feared prosecution under the obscenity laws which ‘The Rainbow’ fell foul of, but also because of the threats of libel actions by people who thought they had been included and, generally, mocked in the novel.

1. In the version we read, the young woman Gerald sleeps with in Soho is named Minette. She was originally named ‘the Pussum’. This was because the Lawrence’s friend, Philip Heseltine (who appears as Halliday) had a mistress who was nicknamed the Puma’. Changing her name to Minette, and a payment of £50, staved off a libel case.

(Anthony Burgess’s entertaining biography of Lawrence tells us that Heseltine was very young when he came into Lawrence’s orbit. Under the name Peter Warlock he was to become a noted writer of classical songs. Coincidentally, he died in the same year as Lawrence, 1930.)

2. More important was Lady Ottoline Morrell who was furious that the rather pompous, opinionated and superior character of Hermione Roddice was based on her.

a woman of the new school, full of intellectuality, and heavy, nerve-worn with consciousness. She was passionately interested in reform, her soul was given up to the public cause. But she was a man’s woman, it was the manly world that held her.

Hermione’s country house, Breadalby, is Lady Ottoline’s Oxford house, Garsington Manor, transplanted to Derbyshire. Not only her aloofness and cloying clinging to Birkin, but the scene where she attacks him with a paperweight, intending to kill him… No wonder she threatened to sue.

3. One of her lunch parties features ‘a learned, dry Baronet of fifty, who was always making witticisms and laughing at them heartily in a harsh, horse-laugh’. This is Bertrand Russell.

4. The notion of a quartet of two couples might be based on the attempt by Lawrence and Frieda to live in a joint household in Cornwall with the writers, John Middleton Murray and Katherine Mansfield. Murray is nothing like Gerald but Mansfield does have some similarities with Gudrun, an artist expert at working in miniatures, her loyalty: and also the fact that she was unfaithful to Murray, having an affair with the artist Mark Gertler who was, apparently, partly the basis for Loerke, both being German-Jewish.

5. Thomas Crich, owner and patriarch of the coalmine, is clearly modelled on Thomas Barber of Barber Walker Company in Eastwood, Nottinghamshire, whose mines Lawrence’s father, Arthur, worked in.

Reviews

Anthony Burgess tells us the novel was met with review headlines including ‘A Book The Police Should Ban’ and ‘Loathsome Study of Sex Depravity Leading Youth to Unspeakable Disaster’ (Burgess, page 101). The stupidity, imaginative incapacity, and the obsession with sex in the crudest, most literal sense remain signs of the philistine mind to this day.

The rationale of Lawrence’s travels

At several points Birkin reiterates Lawrence’s own view about ‘settling down’ in a ‘nice little home’, namely that it’s death of the soul.

‘One should avoid this home instinct. It’s not an instinct, it’s a habit of cowardliness. One should never have a home.’ (p.397)

So as soon as the war was over and he was able to leave wretched little England, Lawrence was off!


Credit

‘Women in Love’ by D.H. Lawrence was published in 1921 by Martin Secker. References are to the 1970 reprint of the 1960 Penguin Classics paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews

Howards End by E.M. Forster (1910)

‘What a mercy it is to have all this money about one!’
(Margaret Schlegel unwittingly expressing the fundamental premise underlying all Forster’s fiction, Howards End, page 182)

‘Howard’s End’ immediately feels better than ‘The Longest Day’. That felt like a late-Victorian novel wasting a huge amount of space on the relatively worthless character of one callow, useless Cambridge undergraduate in a text littered with the worst of Forster’s dreamy, pagan visions. ‘Howard’s End’ immediately feels like a return to a story, a strong narrative with multiple characters having lots of interactions, the elements which made ‘A Room with a View’ so entertaining. It is also Forster’s longest, most complex novel, with a wide range of subjects and themes, from gentle social comedy to bitter tragedy.

Three families

There’s a good enough plot summary on the Wikipedia page. Rather than produce my own version, this blog post is more of a list of the book’s themes and issues, or the ones which struck me.

In essence, ‘Howards End’ describes the interactions of three families:

The Schlegel sisters

The main focus of the novel is on the grown-up Schlegel sisters, Margaret (29) and Helen (21), arty and cultured. Their mother Emily died giving birth to their brother Theobald (Tibby). For five years they were raised by their father but then he died and so Emily’s sister, Juley Munt (Mrs Munt, Aunt Juley) moved into their home, Wickham Place, London, to look after them. When Margaret (‘a sensitive woman’) came of age and started to run the household (i.e. manage the servants) Aunt Juley returned to her home in Swanage where she is a leading light of local literary and arts societies, although she spends much of the novel on extended visits. During the course of the novel Tibby comes of age and attends Oxford.

The Wilcox family

Brisk no-nonsense philistines led by successful businessman Mr Henry Wilcox, married to dreamy gardening Mrs Ruth Wilcox (51), and their grown-up children, stern Charles, Evie and ineffective Paul. After a rocky start Mrs Wilcox and Margaret develop a strange friendship. A third of the way through Mrs Wilcox dies, having concealed her illness (cancer?) from her husband and children. The remaining two-thirds of the novel chronicle the unlikely falling in love of the apparent opposites, in both age and temperament, of Henry Wilcox (mid-50s) and Margaret Schlegel (late 20s).

The Basts

Poor Leonard Bast is a gauche young man who works as a clerk in an insurance company but has aspirations to Art and Culture, pathetically trying to achieve the cultural capital privileged Margaret and Helen were born into.

He is trapped in a relationship with a hard-core working class woman, Jacky who, at the start of the novel, has lost her looks, dresses like a slattern, and thereafter goes steadily downhill, turning Len’s home life into a nightmare of endless sordid arguments. Later on, Forster describes Jacky as ‘bestially stupid’ (p.224).

The boy, Leonard Bast, stood at the extreme verge of gentility. He was not in the abyss, but he could see it, and at times people whom he knew had dropped in, and counted no more. He knew that he was poor, and would admit it: he would have died sooner than confess any inferiority to the rich. This may be splendid of him. But he was inferior to most rich people, there is not the least doubt of it. He was not as courteous as the average rich man, nor as intelligent, nor as healthy, nor as lovable. His mind and his body had been alike underfed, because he was poor, and because he was modern they were always craving better food. Had he lived some centuries ago, in the brightly coloured civilizations of the past, he would have had a definite status, his rank and his income would have corresponded. But in his day the angel of Democracy had arisen, enshadowing the classes with leathern wings, and proclaiming, ‘All men are equal — all men, that is to say, who possess umbrellas,’ and so he was obliged to assert gentility, lest he slipped into the abyss where nothing counts, and the statements of Democracy are inaudible.

Not quite in the abyss, but whenever he appears, to the sensitive noses of the Schlegel sisters he trails ‘odours of the abyss’ (p.124).

Counterpoints and ironies

A whole host of issues, or social codes and conventions, are raised and dramatised by the book. These include the contrast between the hard factual Wilcox family and the dreamy arty Schlegel ladies, which is also a contrast between their German blood (their father fought in the Franco-Prussian war then emigrated to England from the Fatherland) and the Wilcox’s pure Englishness. There are continual comparisons between men and women, conceived almost as separate species with separate ways of looking at everything. There’s the contrast between young vivacious Helen and her older, more serious sister Margaret. The contrast between all the above and the hapless working class man, Leonard Bast, perched on the edge of the abyss. The contrasting attitudes towards the working classes of the Wilcox men (keep them at a distance) and the Schlegel sisters (try to help and elevate them). On a geographical level, the perennial contrast between London and the countryside (at Howards End in Hertfordshire, Oniton Grange in Shropshire, or Aunt Juley’s place in Swanage).

All these contrasts are continually being sounded, like an orchestra playing an extended piece of classical music based on multiple themes or motivs, which are continually sounding then reappearing, in new combinations, between different characters, in difference circumstances. In music this is called counterpoint but, because words have meanings, the orchestration of a long novel like this amounts to sets of interlocking ironies, where different systems of values, personal affections, codes of behaviour, expectations and opinions are constantly clashing and interacting.

Readers identify with sensitive ladies

The main focus is on the Schlegel sisters, nice upper middle-class young women, rentiers living on unearned incomes, who’ve never done a day’s work in their lives but who they and their friends simply assume, in that Bloomsbury way, are everso special, intelligent, cultured, sensitive etc.

Emily’s daughters had never been quite like other girls.

‘Helen is a very exceptional person – I am sure you will let me say this, feeling towards her as you do – indeed, all the Schlegels are exceptional.’ (p.32)

‘My niece is a very exceptional person, and I am not inclined to sit still while she throws herself away on those who will not appreciate her.’

Admittedly, those passages can all be dismissed as Aunt Juley’s entirely biased opinion of her brilliant nieces, but this next passage describing wafting Mrs Wilcox in a similarly privileged vein, is the narrator’s opinion:

She seemed to belong not to the young people and their motor, but to the house, and to the tree that overshadowed it. One knew that she worshipped the past, and that the instinctive wisdom the past can alone bestow had descended upon her — that wisdom to which we give the clumsy name of aristocracy. High born she might not be. But assuredly she cared about her ancestors, and let them help her. (p.36)

Many readers love ‘Howards End’. Only a little way into the book, it occurred to me that this is because readers, specifically women readers, are encouraged to identify with the characters in book, specifically the sensitive ladies, Helen and Margaret and Mrs W, who are repeatedly described as ‘special’, gifted with special insights and above all, depths of feeling, which any female reader might be flatter to identify with.

Not out of them are the shows of history erected: the world would be a grey, bloodless place were it entirely composed of Miss Schlegels. But the world being what it is, perhaps they shine out in it like stars.

Away she hurried, not beautiful, not supremely brilliant, but filled with something that took the place of both qualities — something best described as a profound vivacity, a continual and sincere response to all that she encountered in her path through life. (p.25)

What lady reader of Great Literature would not feel that she, also, possesses ‘a profound vivacity, a continual and sincere response to all that she encountered in her path through life’? And what older female reader wouldn’t sympathise with the calm wisdom of tall, elegant, other-worldly Mrs Wilcox, trailing around her beautifully tended garden, effortlessly dispensing the wisdom of her ancestors?

The rentier mentality

As privileged rentiers (people who live off investments) the Schlegel sisters and Miss Munt can afford an attitude of disliking and condemning everything about the ghastly modern world because they make no contribution to it and have no responsibility for it.

At one point Margaret explains that she and Helen each have an unearned income of £600 a year and brother Tibby, when he comes of age, will have £800. Most significantly, she admits that the sisters’ thoughts are determined by their financial and class position.

‘And all our thoughts are the thoughts of six-hundred-pounders, and all our speeches… Last night, when we were talking up here round the fire, I began to think that the very soul of the world is economic, and that the lowest abyss is not the absence of love, but the absence of coin.’ (p.73)

Presented as some great intellectual breakthrough, like so many of the sisters’ trite thoughts about ‘society’ or ‘life’, the realisation that just possibly having or not having money is more important than ‘love’ is characteristically thick. Into these dense, pampered middle-class minds, a vaguely socialist concern for ‘equality’ sometimes creeps in but not when it counts. It’s a frivolous dabbling. When push comes to shove they both (a little unexpectedly and crudely) worship money, riches, wealth (see below).

Snobbery and comedy

The book is riddled with English class snobbery. In ‘A Room with a View’ English snobbery, and especially snobbery about Art and Love, were very amusingly skewered in the range of preposterously snooty English guests staying at the Pension Bertolini in Florence.

One of the problems of ‘The Longest Journey’ is that the compulsion Forster apparently felt to write ceaselessly about Art and Philosophy and Life and Love or to pop in passages comparing everyone to the pagan gods, was mostly restricted to commentary on poor Rickie Elliott who is, ultimately, too feeble a character (‘a milksop’, as his aunt’s servant describes him) to bear such a heavy freight of meaning.

By happy contrast, here in ‘Howard’s End’, a lot of this satirical and/or classical material is distributed out among multiple characters, so the purple patches feel more rationed and, when they occur, relate to a wider range of characters and so feel more fully dramatised. In ‘The Longest Journey’ Forster was too close to his central protagonist (a transparently autobiographical figure). Here he returns to the distance from all the characters which allows him to be more consistently ironic and so entertaining.

Thus Aunt Juley (Mrs Munt) is an enjoyable satire on the busybody upper middle-class rentier who considers themselves an expert on Art and Literature. Here she is quizzing Margaret Schlegel:

‘What do you think of the Wilcoxes? Are they our sort? Are they likely people? Could they appreciate Helen, who is to my mind a very special sort of person? Do they care about Literature and Art? That is most important when you come to think of it. Literature and Art. Most important.’

But instead of actually making Aunt Juley an expert on Literature and Art, the whole point is that she is as expert in names but empty of thought as all the snobs in ‘A Room with a View’. When Forster tells us she is a leading light in the literary world of Swanage, it is a deft piece of social put-down. This is drily comical (or maybe ironic) and once someone is established as a comic character it gives you permission to smile at everything they say and do. And out from Aunt Juley radiates irony and droll amusement at most of the other characters, creating the gently comic note which colours most of the proceedings. And, on a different level, the sisters’ pampered, thoughtless lifestyle along with their complete inability to manage anything effectively whenever called upon, makes them figures of fun. Forster intends them seriously, maybe even tragically, but they are absurd.

The focus on personal relationships

If the Bloomsbury Group had an ideology it was that personal relations – family, friendship and love – trumped everything else, certainly all those dusty old Victorian notions of Duty and Progress. But it is a limited worldview and they knew it. Forster dramatises it in the contrast between the men of the Wilcox family, Charles senior and junior, and the drifting sensitive Schlegel sisters. Contact with the Wilcox family and its manly menfolk early in the narrative, make Helen realise there’s a big world out there:

‘The truth is that there is a great outer life that you and I have never touched — a life in which telegrams and anger count. Personal relations, that we think supreme, are not supreme there. There love means marriage settlements, death, death duties. So far I’m clear. But here my difficulty. This outer life, though obviously horrid, often seems the real one — there’s grit in it. It does breed character. Do personal relations lead to sloppiness in the end?’

But in the morning, over breakfast, she saw the younger Wilcox son she had rashly fallen in love with, Paul, completely daunted by his brisk businesslike family, realised how weak and fragile his facade was and so (rather illogically) concludes that personal relationships are all that matters.

‘I remember Paul at breakfast,’ said Helen quietly. ‘I shall never forget him. He had nothing to fall back upon. I know that personal relations are the real life, for ever and ever.’

She is relieved to realise she was right all along, she and Margaret and Aunt Juley and all the sensitive spiritual types they invite to their house and enjoy bantering with over dinner cooked and served by the faceless servants, they’re all right to more or less ignore the wider world and gossip about their personal affairs.

This basic premise of the Bloomsbury worldview is repeated umpteen times, in different wording, as if a great truth was being worked out.

It is private life that holds out the mirror to infinity; personal intercourse, and that alone, that ever hints at a personality beyond our daily vision. (p.91)

‘I believe in personal responsibility. Don’t you? And in personal everything…’ (p.232)

‘Nothing matters,’ the Schlegels had said in the past, ‘except one’s self-respect and that of one’s friends.’ (p.322)

It’s not surprising that these pampered characters – never having to work for a living, never having to apply or be interviewed for jobs, never having to worry about commuting, about office politics, never holding any responsibilities for anything at all, with nothing to occupy their minds except their personal relationships – should come to the amazing conclusion that the only thing that matters in the world is… personal relationships!

What is surprising is that, given that they only have one job to do i.e. to manage their handful of significant relationships (with a small family and a small number of friends) they manage to make such a complete horlicks, such an almighty mess of it!

Margaret Schlegel is depicted as the sterner, brainier of the two sisters (she enjoys ‘a reputation as an emancipated woman’, p.156), and yet she makes howlingly embarrassing errors at every point of her relationship with the Wilcox family, over and over again: dispatching Aunt Juley to Howard’s End to sort out Helen’s rash engagement; angering Charles Wilcox so much that they aren’t talking by the end of the drive to the house; writing a clumsily offensive letter to Mrs Wilcox about keeping Paul and Helen apart; visiting her to apologise and promptly smashing her photo of her son’s wedding; then having a massive argument with her in the cab back from Christmas shopping – Margaret Schlegel is depicted as a clumsy, incompetent social disaster! The novel routinely transcribes her conversations with Helen or Aunt Juley as if she is dropping pearls of wisdom and yet time after time we see, in practice, that she’s the last person to take advice from.

The phrase is given to Helen a lot later in the book, when Margaret tells her Mr Wilcox has proposed to her. Helene is appalled and her repetition of the idea has an air of desperately clinging to a notion which no longer suffices.

‘They were all there that morning when I came down to breakfast, and saw that Paul was frightened — the man who loved me frightened and all his paraphernalia fallen, so that I knew it was impossible, because personal relations are the important thing for ever and ever, and not this outer life of telegrams and anger.’ (p.177)

I suppose from one angle the novel is a test of this thesis, an experiment in characters and plot which put it to the test and repeatedly find it failing but don’t exactly come up with anything better.

The shallowness of Edwardian feminism

The Schlegel sisters are portrayed, in detail, with much sympathy, as typically know-nothing feminists. They ‘care deeply’ about politics although they don’t understand actual politics as practiced by politicians. They know nothing about business.

‘Mr. Bast, I don’t understand business, and I dare say my questions are stupid, but can you tell me what makes a concern ‘right’ or ‘wrong’?’

They know nothing of economics except that they love capitalism. Here is a typically laughable exchange between the great social critics, Margaret Schlegel and her Aunt Juley:

AUNT JULY: ‘Do tell me this, at all events. Are you for the rich or for the poor?’
MARGARET: ‘Too difficult. Ask me another. Am I for poverty or for riches? For riches. Hurrah for riches!’
AUNT JULEY: ‘For riches!’ echoed Mrs. Munt…
MARGARET: ‘Yes. For riches. Money for ever!’

They know nothing of working class people i.e. the majority of the population, and they understand nothing about the economics, politics, military importance of the British Empire which helps fund their pampered lifestyles and empty-headed beliefs.

Imperialism always had been one of her difficulties. (p.197)

They did not follow our Forward Policy in Thibet with the keen attention that it merits, and would at times dismiss the whole British Empire with a puzzled, if reverent, sigh.

‘Puzzled’, that’s the key word. It’s all a bit complicated, isn’t it? Best go back to lecturing everyone about how wonderful Beethoven is and the importance of the personal life. Although they occasionally fret about it, the Schlegel sisters are proud of their wilful ignorance of the world outside the tiny circle of their family, friends and acquaintances.

The only things that matter are the things that interest one.

But Forster tells us that these pampered, blinkered, ignorant young women do believe in fine abstract qualities.

Temperance, tolerance, and sexual equality were intelligible cries to them…

From time to time Margaret, the brainier one, does realise how pampered, blinkered and empty her way of life is, she realises she lives in a delightful irrelevant backwater.

There are moments when virtue and wisdom fail us, and one of them came to her at Simpson’s in the Strand. As she trod the staircase, narrow, but carpeted thickly, as she entered the eating-room, where saddles of mutton were being trundled up to expectant clergymen, she had a strong, if erroneous, conviction of her own futility, and wished she had never come out of her backwater, where nothing happened except art and literature, and where no one ever got married or succeeded in remaining engaged. (p.156)

Anyway, it’s the Edwardian era and the Schlegel sisters hold forth about ‘equality’ in a world they are proud to say they understand absolutely nothing about, at dinner parties and at meetings of their little women’s group. But when push comes to shove, they submit to the opinions and decisions of their menfolk – as Margaret, for all her emancipated freethinking, in essence submits to Mr Wilcox’s character and requirements, ‘Margaret, so lively and intelligent, and yet so submissive’.

He had only to call, and she clapped the book up and was ready to do what he wished. (p.255)

And well before the end of the book she has become her soulless husband’s main supporter, a Melania to his Donald:

‘It certainly is a funny world, but so long as men like my husband and his sons govern it, I think it’ll never be a bad one — never really bad.’ (p.269)

A note on the suffragettes

The suffragettes dominated newspaper headlines throughout the Edwardian decade.

But there were cogent arguments against giving women the vote, particularly the progressive Liberal argument that, since the vote would only be given to better-off women, any government which gave women the vote would in effect be handing the Tories a permanent majority and thus bring to a grinding halt all the Liberals’ hopes for broader social reform, fairer taxes, establishing a welfare state and so on.

Anyway, once she has married brisk, businesslike Mr Wilcox, Margaret realises that she has to learn to ‘manage’ him through lateral manoeuvres and psychological tricks rather than straightforward argument. And at one point she is reminded of one of the anti-suffrage arguments put forward by women of her own class.

Now she understood why some women prefer influence to rights. Mrs Plynlimmon, when condemning suffragettes, had said: ‘The woman who can’t influence her husband to vote the way she wants ought to be ashamed of herself.’ Margaret had winced, but she was influencing Henry now, and though pleased at her little victory, she knew that she had won it by the methods of the harem. (p.228)

Margaret’s biological clock

Apparently the phrase biological clock was first coined in 1978. For centuries before that women experienced (I think) social and personal psychological pressure to hurry up and get married. Half way through the book Forster has the elder of the two sisters, Margaret, become acutely aware that she’s getting old. This is by way of explaining why she quite suddenly finds herself susceptible to Mr Wilcox. Forster seeds the issue, preparing us for the plot development.

‘Really, Meg, what has come over you to make such a fuss?’
‘Oh, I’m getting an old maid, I suppose.’ (chapter 7)

At Southampton she waved to Frieda: Frieda was on her way down to join them at Swanage, and Mrs Munt had calculated that their trains would cross. But Frieda was looking the other way, and Margaret travelled on to town feeling solitary and old-maidish. How like an old maid to fancy that Mr. Wilcox was courting her! She had once visited a spinster — poor, silly and unattractive — whose mania it was that every man who approached her fell in love. How Margaret’s heart had bled for the deluded thing! How she had lectured, reasoned, and in despair acquiesced! “I may have been deceived by the curate, my dear, but the young fellow who brings the midday post really is fond of me, and has, as a matter fact—’ It had always seemed to her the most hideous corner of old age, yet she might be driven into it herself by the mere pressure of virginity. (p.164)

She is descending into what Forster, describing raddled Jacky, describes as ‘the colourless years’, the long years of female invisibility that so many modern women complain about – what has, in fact, like so many aspects of modern life, acquired a snappy American name, invisible woman syndrome.

All of which explains the overwhelming sensation of relief she experiences when Mr Wilcox gets round, a few pages later, to proposing to her.

An immense joy came over her. It was indescribable. It had nothing to do with humanity, and most resembled the all-pervading happiness of fine weather. (p.168)

As she sat trying to do accounts in her empty house, amidst beautiful pictures and noble books, waves of emotion broke, as if a tide of passion was flowing through the night air. (p.169)

A Victorian anecdote painting, The Old Maid’s Relief. But also begging the question, Can Forster be expected to really understand the social and biological and psychological pressure a young Edwardian woman was under to marry?

Dismissing the lower classes

The upper middle-class womenfolk put themselves in the hands of the upper middle-class men partly because the latter know how to deal with the lower orders. This is the point of the scene at Hilton station, where Aunt Juley first encounters dashing young Charles Wilcox. ‘He seemed a gentleman… He was dark, clean-shaven and seemed accustomed to command,’ which he demonstrates by giving the lazy oiks who man the parcel office a good talking to!

‘Hi! hi, you there! Are you going to keep me waiting all day? Parcel for Wilcox, Howards End. Just look sharp!” Emerging, he said in quieter tones: ‘This station’s abominably organized; if I had my way, the whole lot of ’em should get the sack.’

A bearded porter emerged with the parcel in one hand and an entry book in the other. With the gathering whir of the motor these ejaculations mingled: ‘Sign, must I? Why the — should I sign after all this bother? Not even got a pencil on you? Remember next time I report you to the station-master. My time’s of value, though yours mayn’t be. Here’ — here being a tip.

As in ‘A Room with a View’, Forster lets his characters condemn themselves out of their own words. This is the deft irony everyone likes about Forster. This skewering of its characters is a big part of the novel’s appeal. Because of my obsession with history, I can see this commanding young man blowing his whistle and unhesitatingly ordering his men over the top of the trenches four years later.

In the drive from the station, Charles Wilcox has to stop to pick up items from various local businesses and tells Aunt Juley to stop her incessant questioning about Helen.

‘Could you possibly lower your voice? The shopman will overhear.’
Esprit de classe — if one may coin the phrase — was strong in Mrs. Munt. She sat quivering while a member of the lower orders deposited a metal funnel, a saucepan, and a garden squirt beside the roll of oilcloth.
‘Right behind?’
‘Yes, sir.’ And the lower orders vanished in a cloud of dust. (p.34)

I understand that this is irony but, it seems to me, irony concealing actual belief. Forster mocks Charles Wilcox’s dismissive attitude to the lower orders but, as the novel progresses, it turns out all the other characters have more or less the same attitude and so, in the end, does Forster himself.

Having just read H.G. Wells’s social novels, I have been sympathising with his young men and women who work long hours in haberdashers and drapers shops, serving people exactly like Charles Wilcox and being treated with exactly the same dismissive scorn.

Forster’s classical compulsions

A third of the way through the novel the winsome, dress-trailing, ancestor-attuned Mrs Wilcox dies. There is a funeral attended by the family who leave after the ceremony is over.

Only the poor remained. They approached to the newly-dug shaft and looked their last at the coffin, now almost hidden beneath the spadefuls of clay. It was their moment….The funeral of a rich person was to them what the funeral of Alcestis or Ophelia is to the educated. It was Art; though remote from life, it enhanced life’s values, and they witnessed it avidly.

How does Forster know? Expert on the rural poor, was he? Of course not. In fact, look at the last two sentences. What he’s done is assimilate the rural poor to his values, somehow making this event (as so many other things in these workshy pampered people’s lives) all about Art and Literature. It’s as if Forster and his friends couldn’t think of anything at all apart from Literature and Art. Sometimes it feels as if absolutely everything that happens to everyone can only be seen and expressed through the prism of Art and Literature, and has to have some reference to classical or English literature dumped on it. Alcestis. Ophelia.

The result is a continual softening and blurring of everything. Everything is made genteel. The trouble with the author mocking Aunt Juley’s insistence on making everything about Literature and Art is that when Forster wants to make everything about Literature and Art, it’s difficult to tell the two apart. The mockery he has aroused about Aunt Juley rebounds on its author.

Later on in the story, Mr Wilcox tells Margaret that the insurance company Leonard Bast works for, the Porphyrion Fire Insurance Company, is about to go bankrupt. A day or two later the sisters invite Leonard round and gently try to warn him about this but he bridles at ladies claiming to know more than he does about his own place of work. So far, so psychologically plausible. But then look at what Forster does to the scene when Margaret asks Len point blank whether the company is financially sound.

Leonard had no idea. He understood his own corner of the machine, but nothing beyond it. He desired to confess neither knowledge nor ignorance, and under these circumstances, another motion of the head seemed safest. To him, as to the British public, the Porphyrion was the Porphyrion of the advertisement — a giant, in the classical style, but draped sufficiently, who held in one hand a burning torch, and pointed with the other to St. Paul’s and Windsor Castle. A large sum of money was inscribed below, and you drew your own conclusions. This giant caused Leonard to do arithmetic and write letters, to explain the regulations to new clients, and re-explain them to old ones. A giant was of an impulsive morality — one knew that much. He would pay for Mrs. Munt’s hearth-rug with ostentatious haste, a large claim he would repudiate quietly, and fight court by court. But his true fighting weight, his antecedents, his amours with other members of the commercial Pantheon — all these were as uncertain to ordinary mortals as were the escapades of Zeus. While the gods are powerful, we learn little about them. It is only in the days of their decadence that a strong light beats into heaven. (p.145)

‘His amours with other members of the commercial Pantheon’? Forster knows nothing about finance or business and so adopts his classic tactic, the tactic we see him adopt in all his novels, which is to draw the reader away from the specifics into a ridiculous but prolonged simile comparing an insurance company with the gods of ancient Greece.

It is a retreat from reality into fog. It is an escape from financial expertise into Aunt Juley’s genteel world of Literature and Art. To go back to the funeral, Forster is happier wittering about Alcestis and Ophelia than actually conveying the sights and sounds of a country burial. Imagine what Thomas Hardy or D.H. Lawrence would have made of it. But with Forster it’s all Alcestis and Ophelia. This habit is central to Forster’s mentality: the escape into the vague.

Earlier, in chapter 11, Charles Senior and Junior have a disagreement about Margaret Schlegel and Forster deftly shows us how they come around to reconciling their different perspectives. But what makes it really Forsterian is the punchline to the scene.

Charles and his father sometimes disagreed. But they always parted with an increased regard for one another, and each desired no doughtier comrade when it was necessary to voyage for a little past the emotions. So the sailors of Ulysses voyaged past the Sirens, having first stopped one another’s ears with wool.

Does he think roping in Ulysses and the Sirens really helps us understand the father and sons’ relationship because it doesn’t, really. Sometimes it feels as if Forster cannot leave his own scenes well alone but is compelled to add a little classical reference, just to make it twee and whimsical, more homely, something Aunt Juley could happily put on her mantlepiece next to the nice little statuette from Greece.

And, towards the end, this description; first half vivid, second half tripe:

The hedge was a half-painted picture which would be finished in a few days. Celandines grew on its banks, lords and ladies and primroses in the defended hollows; the wild rose-bushes, still bearing their withered hips, showed also the promise of blossom. Spring had come, clad in no classical garb, yet fairer than all springs; fairer even than she who walks through the myrtles of Tuscany with the graces before her and the zephyr behind. (p.264)

The unthinkable poor

Forster is permanently aware of his own limitations, the limitations of his class and is quite open about them.

We are not concerned with the very poor. They are unthinkable, and only to be approached by the statistician or the poet. This story deals with gentlefolk, or with those who are obliged to pretend that they are gentlefolk.

Well, the very poor were not ‘unthinkable’ to Dickens or – closer to Forster’s time – to Kipling in his London stories, to the novels of Arthur Morrison or Somerset Maugham. Just to Forster. Why were they ‘unthinkable’ to Forster? Because he knew nothing about them? Because they gave no scope to the witterings about Art and Life which his bourgeois women so enjoy and Forster so enjoys repeating at such length?

All this might be taken as lightly whimsical, self-deprecating irony except that at frequent moments he means it. He really states that

The intrusive narrator

Forster is considered a 20th century classic and yet it’s easy to overlook the way he directly addresses the reader as unashamedly as any 18th or 19th century author, in a very retro way.

To Margaret — I hope that it will not set the reader against her…

If you think this ridiculous, remember that it is not Margaret who is telling you about it; and let me hasten to add that they were in plenty of time for the train…

Take my word for it, that smile was simply stunning…

Not only intrusive but deliberately casual. With a breezy upper middle-class nonchalance. The first words of the long novel are:

One may as well begin with Helen’s letters to her sister…

Oh well, if one simply has to write a novel, one supposes this is where one might as well start. It sets a tone of slightly puffed-out, shoulder-shrugging defeatism about the whole thing.

becomes the Commentator p.107

Wisdom writing

Stepping back, right out of the realm of literature, it’s odd how many writers consider themselves experts on human psychology and litter their texts with words of wisdom and special insights. Looking back years later, Forster described ‘Howard’s End’ as containing ‘a goodly amount of wisdom’. By this I imagine he mostly means the wisdom implicit in the plot, in the dovetailing storylines, in the central one of Margaret’s clear-eyed acceptance of Mr Wilcox’s proposal. But I suppose he also means the regular passages where he shares some ‘insights’ about human nature, routinely doled out on every page.

The affections are more reticent than the passions, and their expression more subtle…

There are moments when the inner life actually ‘pays’, when years of self-scrutiny, conducted for no ulterior motive, are suddenly of practical use. Such moments are still rare in the West; that they come at all promises a fairer future.

The question is, whether any of this kind of thing actually is ‘wisdom’ or just rhythmic truisms? Pretty mental scenery? Or just not true at all?

Some leave our life with tears, others with an insane frigidity; Mrs. Wilcox had taken the middle course, which only rarer natures can pursue. She had kept proportion. She had told a little of her grim secret to her friends, but not too much; she had shut up her heart —almost, but not entirely. It is thus, if there is any rule, that we ought to die — neither as victim nor as fanatic, but as the seafarer who can greet with an equal eye the deep that he is entering, and the shore that he must leave.

Do you feel that you ought to die ‘as the seafarer who can greet with an equal eye the deep that he is entering, and the shore that he must leave’? Or is it just lulling rhetoric, very close to the motto in a birthday card?

It is so easy to talk of ‘passing emotion’, and how to forget how vivid the emotion was ere it passed. Our impulse to sneer, to forget, is at root a good one. We recognize that emotion is not enough, and that men and women are personalities capable of sustained relations, not mere opportunities for an electrical discharge. Yet we rate the impulse too highly. We do not admit that by collisions of this trivial sort the doors of heaven may be shaken open.

I freely admit to not understanding this. Maybe it is too subtle for me. Or maybe it’s hogwash. But in its fine-sounding obtuseness, it is very characteristic of Forster, and very characteristic is the way it starts off sound reasonable but ends with bombastic rhetoric about ‘the doors of heaven’.

Same in the following passage which starts off reasonably enough, stating that real life is confusing and we waste our energy on all kinds of plans that never come off. But the conclusion? About Greeks and romance?

Looking back on the past six months, Margaret realized the chaotic nature of our daily life, and its difference from the orderly sequence that has been fabricated by historians. Actual life is full of false clues and sign-posts that lead nowhere. With infinite effort we nerve ourselves for a crisis that never comes. The most successful career must show a waste of strength that might have removed mountains, and the most unsuccessful is not that of the man who is taken unprepared, but of him who has prepared and is never taken. On a tragedy of that kind our national morality is duly silent. It assumes that preparation against danger is in itself a good, and that men, like nations, are the better for staggering through life fully armed. The tragedy of preparedness has scarcely been handled, save by the Greeks. Life is indeed dangerous, but not in the way morality would have us believe. It is indeed unmanageable, but the essence of it is not a battle. It is unmanageable because it is a romance, and its essence is romantic beauty.

The essence of life is romantic beauty? Really? Or is this just another pretty sentiment, to go on a piece of embroidery Aunt Juley can hang on her wall, or can be a polite topic at one of Helen and Margaret’s discussion groups? Like many other pretty doilies, all of which follow the same patter of starting in the present moment and moving towards gassy generalisations, and then the invocation of some classical gods of figure from English Literature, preferably Shakespeare:

How wide the gulf between Henry as he was and Henry as Helen thought he ought to be! And she herself — hovering as usual between the two, now accepting men as they are, now yearning with her sister for Truth. Love and Truth — their warfare seems eternal. Perhaps the whole visible world rests on it, and if they were one, life itself, like the spirits when Prospero was reconciled to his brother, might vanish into air, into thin air. (p.228)

A few pages later here is an example of Helen’s philosophising:

To Helen the paradox became clearer and clearer. ‘Death destroys a man: the idea of Death saves him.’ Behind the coffins and the skeletons that stay the vulgar mind lies something so immense that all that is great in us responds to it. Men of the world may recoil from the charnel-house that they will one day enter, but Love knows better. Death is his foe, but his peer, and in their age-long struggle the thews of Love have been strengthened, and his vision cleared, until there is no one who can stand against him. (p.237)

Only connect

The book is littered with passages about Love, that subject so many scores of thousands of novelists have felt compelled to enlighten us about.

Margaret greeted her lord with peculiar tenderness on the morrow. Mature as he was, she might yet be able to help him to the building of the rainbow bridge that should connect the prose in us with the passion. Without it we are meaningless fragments, half monks, half beasts, unconnected arches that have never joined into a man. With it love is born, and alights on the highest curve, glowing against the grey, sober against the fire. Happy the man who sees from either aspect the glory of these outspread wings. The roads of his soul lie clear, and he and his friends shall find easy-going.

Do you understand what that means? Have you built a rainbow bridge to connect your prose and your passion? This is the prelude to the famous passage explaining the motto and central motif of the novel, which is ‘only connect’. Connect what? The passion and the prose.

Only connect! That was the whole of her sermon. Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer. Only connect, and the beast and the monk, robbed of the isolation that is life to either, will die. Nor was the message difficult to give. It need not take the form of a good ‘talking’. By quiet indications the bridge would be built and span their lives with beauty. (p.188)

Inevitably, it’s hurrying men (the ones who do the work and run the businesses and manage the Empire and make the products which Helen and Margaret so blithely take for granted) who fail to connect. Silly men.

Her evening was pleasant. The sense of flux which had haunted her all the year disappeared for a time. She forgot the luggage and the motor-cars, and the hurrying men who know so much and connect so little. (p.204)

A rude joke

I was flabbergasted when, in chapter 17, it is revealed that Mr Wilcox had had slatternly Jacky Bast as a mistress while he was still married to the saintly Mrs Wilcox. Firstly flabbergasted by the way this bumbling narrative about sensitive ladies suddenly lurched into gaudy Victorian melodrama. But then a crude joke occurred to me: only a few pages earlier Margaret had been complaining at length that men don’t connect enough, specifically connecting ‘the prose and the passion’. Well, here was a prime example of a ‘prosey’ man all-too-solidly connecting the ‘passionate’ Jacky. He connected alright but in the wrong way. He had not connected Margaret’s Mills and Boon notions of ‘passion’ and ‘prose’, but his **** to Jacky’s **** and that, to the supposedly freethinking, emancipated, independent woman, Margaret, was as unacceptable as to all her Victorian forebears.

I laughed when Margaret – staggered and appalled at this revelation that her intended had a mistress, furiously pondering and cogitating – thinks her way all the way through to the amazing conclusion that:

Men must be different, even to want to yield to such a temptation. (p.238)

Men must be different from women when it comes to sex!? She figured that out all by herself. And she’s the brainy one.

But, in fact, Margaret cannot bear to face the facts and so takes refuge from reality, as women have from time immemorial, in spiritual tripe, described in a typical Forster paragraph which begins fairly rationally and ends with the gods in heaven.

Are the sexes really races, each with its own code of morality, and their mutual love a mere device of Nature to keep things going? Strip human intercourse of the proprieties, and is it reduced to this? Her judgment told her no. She knew that out of Nature’s device we have built a magic that will win us immortality. Far more mysterious than the call of sex to sex is the tenderness that we throw into that call; far wider is the gulf between us and the farmyard than between the farmyard and the garbage that nourishes it. We are evolving, in ways that Science cannot measure, to ends that Theology dares not contemplate. ‘Men did produce one jewel,’ the gods will say, and, saying, will give us immortality. (p.238)

‘We are evolving, in ways that Science cannot measure, to ends that Theology dares not contemplate.’ This is the most complete tripe.

And then, in a sequence which surely recalls the tritest clichés of 18th and 19th century novelettes, Margaret’s response to the revelation that her intended is a man of flesh and blood who’s had sex is to decide that she will devote her life to making Henry ‘a better man’ (p.240).

Pity was at the bottom of her actions all through this crisis. Pity, if one may generalize, is at the bottom of woman. When men like us, it is for our better qualities, and however tender their liking, we dare not be unworthy of it, or they will quietly let us go. But unworthiness stimulates woman. It brings out her deeper nature, for good or for evil. Here was the core of the question. Henry must be forgiven, and made better by love; nothing else mattered. (p.240)

Is this true, about women? Was it ever true or is it sentimental hogwash? As to the brainy one in the family, the most liberated feminist, deciding she will devote her life to making Wilcox ‘better by love’…

It unwittingly hilarious that after this torrent of Mills and Boon clichés, at her titanic intellectual achievement of realising that men are men, and then her melodramatic decision to devote her life to redeeming her man… that after this torrent of scientific illiteracy and desperate clichés, Margaret (and Forster) take it upon themselves to comment on Henry’s ‘intellectual confusion’ (p.240). Henry strikes me as being the only clear-headed character in the book.

London

‘Howards End’ contains numerous descriptions of London which are worth recording. The endless building:

Their house was in Wickham Place, and fairly quiet, for a lofty promontory of buildings separated it from the main thoroughfare. One had the sense of a backwater, or rather of an estuary, whose waters flowed in from the invisible sea, and ebbed into a profound silence while the waves without were still beating. Though the promontory consisted of flats—expensive, with cavernous entrance halls, full of concierges and palms—it fulfilled its purpose, and gained for the older houses opposite a certain measure of peace. These, too, would be swept away in time, and another promontory would rise upon their site, as humanity piled itself higher and higher on the precious soil of London.

And rebuilding:

Here he stopped again, and glanced suspiciously to right and left, like a rabbit that is going to bolt into its hole. A block of flats, constructed with extreme cheapness, towered on either hand. Farther down the road two more blocks were being built, and beyond these an old house was being demolished to accommodate another pair. It was the kind of scene that may be observed all over London, whatever the locality—bricks and mortar rising and falling with the restlessness of the water in a fountain, as the city receives more and more men upon her soil. Camelia Road would soon stand out like a fortress, and command, for a little, an extensive view. Only for a little. Plans were out for the erection of flats in Magnolia Road also. And again a few years, and all the flats in either road might be pulled down, and new buildings, of a vastness at present unimaginable, might arise where they had fallen.

And pulling down:

They mean to pull down Wickham Place, and build flats like yours.’
‘But how horrible!’
‘Landlords are horrible.’
Then she said vehemently: ‘It is monstrous, Miss Schlegel; it isn’t right. I had no idea that this was hanging over you. I do pity you from the bottom of my heart. To be parted from your house, your father’s house – it oughtn’t to be allowed. It is worse than dying. I would rather die than – Oh, poor girls! Can what they call civilization be right, if people mayn’t die in the room where they were born?

Which all produces an endless flux (see also the Home section, below):

‘I hate this continual flux of London. It is an epitome of us at our worst — eternal formlessness; all the qualities, good, bad, and indifferent, streaming away — streaming, streaming for ever. That’s why I dread it so. I mistrust rivers, even in scenery. Now, the sea —’

London relentlessly expanding:

Over two years passed, and the Schlegel household continued to lead its life of cultured but not ignoble ease, still swimming gracefully on the grey tides of London. Concerts and plays swept past them, money had been spent and renewed, reputations won and lost, and the city herself, emblematic of their lives, rose and fell in a continual flux, while her shallows washed more widely against the hills of Surrey and over the fields of Hertfordshire. This famous building had arisen, that was doomed. Today Whitehall had been transformed: it would be the turn of Regent Street tomorrow. And month by month the roads smelt more strongly of petrol, and were more difficult to cross, and human beings heard each other speak with greater difficulty, breathed less of the air, and saw less of the sky. Nature withdrew: the leaves were falling by midsummer; the sun shone through dirt with an admired obscurity.

To speak against London is no longer fashionable. The Earth as an artistic cult has had its day, and the literature of the near future will probably ignore the country and seek inspiration from the town. One can understand the reaction. Of Pan and the elemental forces, the public has heard a little too much — they seem Victorian, while London is Georgian — and those who care for the earth with sincerity may wait long ere the pendulum swings back to her again. Certainly London fascinates. One visualizes it as a tract of quivering grey, intelligent without purpose, and excitable without love; as a spirit that has altered before it can be chronicled; as a heart that certainly beats, but with no pulsation of humanity. It lies beyond everything: Nature, with all her cruelty, comes nearer to us than do these crowds of men. A friend explains himself: the earth is explicable — from her we came, and we must return to her. But who can explain Westminster Bridge Road or Liverpool Street in the morning — the city inhaling — or the same thoroughfares in the evening — the city exhaling her exhausted air? We reach in desperation beyond the fog, beyond the very stars, the voids of the universe are ransacked to justify the monster, and stamped with a human face. London is religion’s opportunity — not the decorous religion of theologians, but anthropomorphic, crude. Yes, the continuous flow would be tolerable if a man of our own sort—not anyone pompous or tearful — were caring for us up in the sky.

(Note the typical Forsterian escalation, starting from an ordinary situation then moving via his favourite god, Pan [see his short stories] to an absurd vision of God in his heaven.)

London stations:

Like many others who have lived long in a great capital, she had strong feelings about the various railway termini. They are our gates to the glorious and the unknown. Through them we pass out into adventure and sunshine, to them alas! we return. In Paddington all Cornwall is latent and the remoter west; down the inclines of Liverpool Street lie fenlands and the illimitable Broads; Scotland is through the pylons of Euston; Wessex behind the poised chaos of Waterloo. Italians realize this, as is natural; those of them who are so unfortunate as to serve as waiters in Berlin call the Anhalt Bahnhof the Stazione d’Italia, because by it they must return to their homes. And he is a chilly Londoner who does not endow his stations with some personality, and extend to them, however shyly, the emotions of fear and love.

London at dusk:

London was beginning to illuminate herself against the night. Electric lights sizzled and jagged in the main thoroughfares, gas-lamps in the side streets glimmered a canary gold or green. The sky was a crimson battlefield of spring, but London was not afraid. Her smoke mitigated the splendour, and the clouds down Oxford Street were a delicately painted ceiling, which adorned while it did not distract. She has never known the clear-cut armies of the purer air. (p.129)

Margaret looking for a new home:

But London thwarted her; in its atmosphere she could not concentrate. London only stimulates, it cannot sustain; and Margaret, hurrying over its surface for a house without knowing what sort of a house she wanted, was paying for many a thrilling sensation in the past. She could not even break loose from culture, and her time was wasted by concerts which it would be a sin to miss, and invitations which it would never do to refuse. (p.155)

Against the modern world

As privileged rentiers, the Schlegel sisters and Miss Munt can afford a hoity-toity attitude of disliking and condemning everything about the ghastly modern world. What comes across is that this is Forster’s attitude, too. See the passages about London, above. Or his entertainingly consistent hatred of motor cars (and modern advertising).

Awakening, after a nap of a hundred years, to such life as is conferred by the stench of motor-cars, and to such culture as is implied by the advertisements of antibilious pills.

The railway station for Howards End:

Was new, it had island platforms and a subway, and the superficial comfort exacted by business men.

Business men, yuk! Cars recur whenever Forster’s feeling bilious about the modern world:

The Schlegels were certainly the poorer for the loss of Wickham Place. It had helped to balance their lives, and almost to counsel them. Nor is their ground-landlord spiritually the richer. He has built flats on its site, his motor-cars grow swifter, his exposures of Socialism more trenchant. But he has spilt the precious distillation of the years, and no chemistry of his can give it back to society again. (p. 154)

A motor-drive, a form of felicity detested by Margaret, awaited her… But it was not an impressive drive. Perhaps the weather was to blame, being grey and banked high with weary clouds. Perhaps Hertfordshire is scarcely intended for motorists… ‘Look out, if the road worries you — right outward at the scenery.’ She looked at the scenery. It heaved and merged like porridge. Presently it congealed. They had arrived. (p.199)

MR WILCOX: ‘You young fellows’ one idea is to get into a motor. I tell you, I want to walk: I’m very fond of walking.’ (p.319)

Nostalgia for the Middle Ages

Everything new tends to be bad, an attitude which crops up in a hundred details and throwaway remarks. A little more striking is the several places where Forster appears to be pining for the good old Middle Ages where everyone knew their place and there was none of this ghastly modern muddle. When the Schlegel sisters have to leave Wickham Place, Forster laments:

The feudal ownership of land did bring dignity, whereas the modern ownership of movables is reducing us again to a nomadic horde.

And speaking of poor Leonard:

Had he lived some centuries ago, in the brightly coloured civilizations of the past, he would have had a definite status, his rank and his income would have corresponded. But in his day the angel of Democracy had arisen…

Ah, the angel of Democracy, curse of the modern world.

The authentic earth

Forster despises the motor car partly because it disconnects its passengers from The Earth. Surprisingly for such an etiolated townie, in Forster contact with The Earth implies authenticity. Racing through the landscape so fast that it becomes a blur indicates rootlessness and disconnection.

She felt their whole journey from London had been unreal. They had no part with the earth and its emotions. They were dust, and a stink, and cosmopolitan chatter… (p.213)

The sense of flux which had haunted her all the year disappeared for a time. She forgot the luggage and the motor-cars, and the hurrying men who know so much and connect so little. She recaptured the sense of space, which is the basis of all earthly beauty, and, starting from Howards End, she attempted to realize England.

The feudal ownership of land did bring dignity, whereas the modern ownership of movables is reducing us again to a nomadic horde. We are reverting to the civilization of luggage, and historians of the future will note how the middle classes accreted possessions without taking root in the earth, and may find in this the secret of their imaginative poverty.

We need to reconnect with The Earth and this is the feeling Margaret has when she finally visits Howards End, abandoned by its tenant, in the dark, in the rain. Alone in the darkened house she hears the beating of the building’s ancient heart which is, of course, the heartbeat of England, too.

Moving house / finding a home

In his afterword to ‘A Room with a View’, Forster casually mentioned that all of his fictions are about people trying to find a home. In an increasingly migrant, transient world, that was a shrewd issue to make so central to his stories, yet easy to overlook in all the guff about Art and Love.

Quite clearly Howards End possesses powerful symbolism as some kind of ‘heart of England’ emblem and its disputed ownership is similarly symptomatic of rapidly changing social and class boundaries.

But the Schlegel sisters are also themselves radically homeless. The home where they were born and brought up was never owned by the family but just leased. And when the lease expires half way through the novel there is a great deal of upheaval and upset. The theme is briefly expressed in Margaret’s conversation with Mr Wilcox on the Thames Embankment.

‘Do remind Evie to come and see us — two, Wickham Place. We shan’t be there very long, either.’
‘You, too, on the move?’
‘Next September,’ Margaret sighed.
‘Every one moving! Good-bye.’ (p.143)

And this simple exchange is very deftly placed as the characters look out over the River Thames at the turning of the tide, subtly symbolising the way that nothing ever says the same, everything is in a continual state of flux, one of the novel’s key words.

‘I hate this continual flux of London. It is an epitome of us at our worst — eternal formlessness; all the qualities, good, bad, and indifferent, streaming away — streaming, streaming for ever. That’s why I dread it so. I mistrust rivers, even in scenery. Now, the sea —’

Margaret was silent. Marriage had not saved her from the sense of flux. London was but a foretaste of this nomadic civilization which is altering human nature so profoundly, and throws upon personal relations a stress greater than they have ever borne before. Under cosmopolitanism, if it comes, we shall receive no help from the earth. Trees and meadows and mountains will only be a spectacle, and the binding force that they once exercised on character must be entrusted to Love alone. May Love be equal to the task! (p.257)

Oniton

It’s at Oniton Grange Mr Wilcox has bought in a remote corner of Shropshire, that he hosts Evie’s wedding, and whither Helen rashly brings Leonard Bast and his wife Jacky, who drunkenly recognises Henry as her seducer.

The relevance of Oniton to the ‘moving house’ theme is that, 1) never having liked it (damp, miles from anywhere) and 2) associating it with the revelation of his infidelity, Wilcox sells it. Thus Margaret, who had arrived with such high hopes and a fervent desire to put down roots and become known in the neighbourhood, is again disappointed. And Forster turns it into one of his many, many moralising passages, in this case lamenting the fundamental rootlessness of modern people.

She never saw it again. Day and night the river flows down into England, day after day the sun retreats into the Welsh mountains, and the tower chimes, ‘See the Conquering Hero’. But the Wilcoxes have no part in the place, nor in any place. It is not their names that recur in the parish register. It is not their ghosts that sigh among the alders at evening. They have swept into the valley and swept out of it, leaving a little dust and a little money behind.

The novel ends with the sisters inheriting or moving into Howards End as if it were the most natural thing. Their superior spiritual life, their emotional depth and so on, simply entitle them to it. They alone ‘see life steadily and see it whole’ (as they tiresomely repeat) and value the heart’s affections and understand emotion and know how to use the pronoun ‘I’, and so they deserve it.

Eustace Miles

The gender food gap. Mr Wilcox invites Margaret to Simpsons in the Strand, a place dressed up to the nines to portray Olde England, serving chops and steak to imperial administrators. Mr Wilcox knowledgably recommends saddle of mutton with cider. Man = meat and money. By way of return. Margaret invites Wilcox to dine at Eustace Miles, which she describes as ‘all proteids and body-buildings’ and people coming up to ask you about your aura and your astral plane. Woman = vegetarianism and spiritualism.

I was intrigued by all this and so looked up Eustace Miles to discover that he was a noted food faddist and writer about numerous health diets. Look how many books about health and diet he published during the Edwardian decade, 20 by my count!

I was struck by the title of ‘Better Food for Boys’ (1901). One hundred and twenty-three years after Miles was campaigning for a better diet, Britain is experiencing what some commentators call an obesity epidemic and government agencies I’ve worked in spend a fortune on campaigns to encourage healthier eating among the general population while the problem gets steadily, obstinately worse.

Like talk of vegetarianism, saving the environment, avoiding war, gender equality, socialism, political reform, improving education – you realise that these issues have been around, have been written about, talked about, promoted and debated, for over a hundred years and yet we’re still wasting vast acreage of newsprint, digital spaces, social media and so on, worrying about them.

At some point you are forced to conclude that these are just the permanent background noise of our society, like traffic congestion or the drone of airplanes overhead. They will always be here. People will always complain about them. Nothing will change.

Imperialism

I was surprised that the British Empire plays a small but non-negligible role in the story. The younger Wilcox son, Paul, is scheduled to go out to Nigeria to work in some business, and there are scattered references, later on, to the wretched heat and the impossible natives that he has to deal with. And Henry Wilcox himself is said to have made his fortune in West Africa, something to do with rubber. Here’s the full paragraph in which we get most detail. As you can see, Forster is more interested in sly digs and sarcasm than bothering to understand anything. And he makes it crystal clear that his posh ladies find it all far too complicated, an irritating distraction from their core activity of endlessly discussing each others’ feelings.

The following morning, at eleven o’clock, she [Margaret] presented herself at the offices of the Imperial and West African Rubber Company. She was glad to go there, for Henry had implied his business rather than described it, and the formlessness and vagueness that one associates with Africa had hitherto brooded over the main sources of his wealth. Not that a visit to the office cleared things up. There was just the ordinary surface scum of ledgers and polished counters and brass bars that began and stopped for no possible reason, of electric-light globes blossoming in triplets, of little rabbit hutches faced with glass or wire, of little rabbits. And even when she penetrated to the inner depths, she found only the ordinary table and Turkey carpet, and though the map over the fireplace did depict a helping of West Africa, it was a very ordinary map. Another map hung opposite, on which the whole continent appeared, looking like a whale marked out for blubber, and by its side was a door, shut, but Henry’s voice came through it, dictating a ‘strong’ letter. She might have been at the Porphyrion, or Dempster’s Bank, or her own wine-merchant’s. Everything seems just alike in these days. But perhaps she was seeing the Imperial side of the company rather than its West African, and Imperialism always had been one of her difficulties.

Of course, as a good Liberal Forster was against the British Empire, and all the preposterous swank surrounding it, the gaudy ceremonies and the maps and the jingoistic boasting, and the no-nonsense practical talk of business men like Mr Wilcox. It forms into one aspect of the recurring comparison between Germany and Britain, namely that these cultured nations have manoeuvred themselves into a ridiculous rivalry (just how ridiculous would become clear four years later).

That when Margaret marries Henry Wilcox, she begins to enjoy the trappings of wealth derived from exploiting Africa’s resources and people troubles neither character nor author at all. The soul and the spirit and the holiness of the heart’s affections, seeing life steadily and seeing it whole, that’s what fills Margaret’s pampered mind, no matter that vast amounts of actual life are completely hidden from her blinkered view. Here are her thoughts in the days after Leonard’s sudden death:

Yet life was a deep, deep river, death a blue sky, life was a house, death a wisp of hay, a flower, a tower, life and death were anything and everything, except this ordered insanity, where the king takes the queen, and the ace the king. Ah, no; there was beauty and adventure behind, such as the man at her feet had yearned for; there was hope this side of the grave; there were truer relationships beyond the limits that fetter us now. As a prisoner looks up and sees stars beckoning, so she, from the turmoil and horror of those days, caught glimpses of the diviner wheels. (p.320)

At such moments the soul retires within, to float upon the bosom of a deeper stream, and has communion with the dead, and sees the world’s glory not diminished, but different in kind to what she has supposed. (p.322)

With people who think like this, no rational communication can really be held. But many people love the deep ‘spirituality’ and emotional depth of the Schlegel sisters and think life is all about shimmering emotions and arranging flowers in vases. Different strokes.

The ropes of life

Forster repeatedly uses the image of ‘the ropes’ of life to denote control of society and the economy. It is, therefore, always associated with the clear-headed practical Wilcox men. It is a striking image which, at the same time, conveys his characteristic ignorance, and lack of interest, in how things actually work.

The Wilcoxes continued to play a considerable part in her thoughts. She had seen so much of them in the final week. They were not ‘her sort,’ they were often suspicious and stupid, and deficient where she excelled; but collision with them stimulated her, and she felt an interest that verged into liking, even for Charles. She desired to protect them, and often felt that they could protect her, excelling where she was deficient. Once past the rocks of emotion, they knew so well what to do, whom to send for; their hands were on all the ropes…

‘Oh, Meg, that’s what I felt, only not so clearly, when the Wilcoxes were so competent, and seemed to have their hands on all the ropes.’

Which is just how head of the Wilcox clan, Henry Wilcox, feels about himself:

The man of business smiled. Since his wife’s death he had almost doubled his income. He was an important figure at last, a reassuring name on company prospectuses, and life had treated him very well… With a good dinner inside him and an amiable but academic woman on either flank, he felt that his hands were on all the ropes of life, and that what he did not know could not be worth knowing.

For Leonard Bast, who’s outside everything, the ropes symbolise all the mysterious elements of cultural capital which he’ll never achieve or understand:

Those Miss Schlegels had come to it; they had done the trick; their hands were upon the ropes, once and for all.

There was the girl named Helen, who had pinched his umbrella, and the German girl who had smiled at him pleasantly, and Herr someone, and Aunt someone, and the brother — all, all with their hands on the ropes. They had all passed up that narrow, rich staircase at Wickham Place, to some ample room, whither he could never follow them, not if he read for ten hours a day.

Can a middle-aged gay man describe the feelings of a young straight woman?

Obviously that’s what the art of fiction is all about, creating characters beyond your own experience and persuading the reader that they’re ‘real’. Personally, I struggle with the notion of ‘character’ in any work of fiction. Some characters in Shakespeare and Dickens appear ‘real’ to me, almost all the others I’ve ever encountered feel like cyphers created for the plot.

Back to Forster, can a gay middle-aged man depict a straight young woman in love? No. I don’t think he can. The feelings of Margaret for Mr Wilcox and Helen for Leonard Bast are both carefully prepared and sensitively described and I don’t really believe either.

I’m not alone. Many critics at the time and since have criticised the completely improbable notion that beautiful young Helen would be so overcome with Leonard Bast’s plight that, not only would she drag him and his ragged wife all the way by train to rural Shropshire in order to confront Mr Wilcox, but that then, with his wife staying in the same hotel and likely to return from Evie’s wedding party at any moment, under these fraught circumstances she impulsively has sex with him. Given the awesome social and psychological strictures against sex of any kind, given Helen’s fastidious character and all the sisters’ Bloomsbury talk about Art and Literature and Spirit and Romance, given Margaret’s disgusted recoil from the revelation that Henry had a working class mistress, the thought that Helen gives Leonard a mercy fuck is as wildly improbable as a spaceship landing in the middle of the story.

It feels, in these scenes, as if Forster twists and distorts his own characters in order to create a melodramatic climax to his novel, just as he did in the similarly garish climaxes of ‘Where Angels Fear To Tread’ and ‘The Longest Journey’.

It’s one of the oddities of this odd writer that, after 300 pages of middle-class ladies wafting in and out of book-lined rooms, vapouring about Art and the Spirit, a plotless ambience which could trail on for years, maybe forever, the only way he can think of bringing these domestic ramblings to an end is by the twin shocks of wildly improbable sex or sudden, grotesque violence. His brutal climaxes leave a harsh metallic flavour in the mind which sheds a strange shadow over all the sensitive thoughts and fancies which preceded them for hundreds of pages.

An anti-man novel

No, is the short answer. Forster does the ever-changing moods of the wafting, sensitive Schlegel sisters so well that Howards End remains vibrant and alive to this day. But look at the men in it! Tibby, their brother, is an unfeeling, asocial nerd who is always described from the outside. Leonard Bast is a cypher, a valiant attempt at understanding the respectable working classes which doesn’t succeed. Charles Wilcox is depicted as an unfeeling brute. And Henry Wilcox, despite the acres of words devoted to him, never really becomes real. He remains the type of the brisk, no-nonsense, self-deceiving and emotionally undeveloped Business Man.

And pretty much all the other male figures receive short shrift, too. It becomes really clear at the end just how much Margaret / Forster dislikes them. She dislikes the Wilcox’s chauffeur, Lane. She makes a point of disliking the local doctor called to attend Leonard’s corpse, Dr Mansbridge (odd name), describing him as ‘vulgar and acute’. He is quickly transformed into a symbol of Forster’s dislike of science in general.

Science explained people, but could not understand them. After long centuries among the bones and muscles it might be advancing to knowledge of the nerves, but this would never give understanding. One could open the heart to Mr. Mansbridge and his sort without discovering its secrets to them, for they wanted everything down in black and white, and black and white was exactly what they were left with.

‘Mr. Mansbridge and his sort’ eh? Damn these doctors and scientists, coming up with cures for everything all the time. Don’t they realise that the only way to be is to live off other people’s labour and ponce around in long skirts, picking flowers and talking about your soul? Anybody who doesn’t realise this obvious truth is so ghastly and so vulgar.

I thought this anti-man animus really came to the fore in the last few pages. As well as hating doctors and scientists, Margaret also, of course, hates her husband, his son and everything they stand for. Thus the speech she delivers to Henry telling him what an insensitive brute he is for not letting Helen spend the night at Howards End is actually an attack on all men.

It was spoken not only to her husband, but to thousands of men like him — a protest against the inner darkness in high places that comes with a commercial age. Though he would build up his life without hers, she could not apologize. He had refused to connect, on the clearest issue that can be laid before a man, and their love must take the consequences.

Men, men, men! refusing to connect the passion and the prose, the only thing that matters. What a ghastly little man he is.

With unfaltering eye she traced his future. He would soon present a healthy mind to the world again, and what did he or the world care if he was rotten at the core? He would grow into a rich, jolly old man, at times a little sentimental about women, but emptying his glass with anyone. Tenacious of power, he would keep Charles and the rest dependent, and retire from business reluctantly and at an advanced age. (p.323)

‘Rotten at the core’. When Margaret asks Henry to talk to her, and sit on the grass, Forster makes even this little thing a way of complaining about men.

The Great North Road should have been bordered all its length with glebe. Henry’s kind had filched most of it.

Greedy bastards. When Henry offers to say something, her response is hard.

She knew this superficial gentleness, this confession of hastiness, that was only intended to enhance her admiration of the male. (p.324)

Fear the male. Resist the male. Hate the male. Men exploiting the world. Men filching the land. Men playing their emotional games. Men demanding to be worshipped. Oh why why why can’t men be more like spiritual sensitive Margaret, vivacious caring Helen, or Mrs Wilcox wafting through the garden of her ancestors? At its climax, I couldn’t help feeling the book was asking, Why can’t horrible beastly men be more like lovely sensitive women?

The blinkered bourgeois hypocrisy of this view is beautifully expressed in the last scene, set fourteen months after Leonard’s death, with Helen and her baby and Margaret now installed in Howards End. The scene opens with them lazing in the garden, enjoying the tranquility and thinking about flowers and life and eternity, as they do. Meanwhile, in the background, men work. The labouring men who kept the estate and all Edwardian estates functioning, are hard at work. The text tells us that Tom’s father is cutting the big meadow with a mowing machine while another (unnamed) labourer is ‘scything out the dell holes’.

These men are doing hard physical labour to provide lovely settings for pampered middle-class ladies to spend all day long, from morning to night, talking about their fine feelings. Margaret and Helen never have done, and never will do, a day’s work in their lives.

Margaret did not reply. The scything had begun, and she took off her pince-nez to watch it.

Watching other people, watching working class men, work. And yet these parasites take it upon themselves to dislike the male servants and despise businessmen and yawn at the empire, dismissing and mocking the men who labour night and day to provide them with their lives of luxury, ‘gilded with tranquillity’, as Forster admiringly puts it (p.326).

The sentimental reader sighs with satisfaction that the spiritual sisters have finally inherited Howards End as spiritual Mrs Wilcox, and the entire Spirit of England, always intended them to.

‘There are moments when I feel Howards End peculiarly our own.’ (p.329)

In direct contrast, I note that Margaret and Helen acquire this idyllic rural home only after the central male characters have been killed (Leonard), imprisoned (Charles) or broken (Henry). And a fleet of male servants and labourers are conveniently in place to silently serve them. It is as corrupt as the ancient Roman pouring special wines for his pampered guests surrounded by the slaves who make his whole life of luxury possible.

Howards End is traditionally seen as a novel about the triumph of two sensitive spiritual sisters over terrible adversities. I see it as their triumphant conquest of Men. Forster knows this. When, on the last page, Henry Wilcox, broken in spirit by the imprisonment of his son, announces to the rest of his family that he is giving Howards End to his wife, Margaret feels not happiness or relief but triumph.

Margaret did not answer. There was something uncanny in her triumph. She, who had never expected to conquer anyone, had charged straight through these Wilcoxes and broken up their lives.

Leonard dead. Charles in prison. Henry a broken man. Margaret’s victory is usually seen as a victory of sensibility over philistine materialism but she senses it represents something bigger. She has won the battle of the sexes at which point you wonder, Is this what the entire novel has been about all along? Effete gay E.M. Forster’s profound hatred of active, purposeful straight men.

Forster’s prose

I suppose E.M. Forster is a big writer, part of the canon, a classic, and much loved by his fans. But I don’t think I read a single sentence which I enjoyed. Lots of scenes are very acutely imagined and described – days later I remember Margaret arguing with Charles Wilcox in the car and Margaret arguing with Mrs Wilcox in the Christmas shopping trip. Margaret could start an argument with a brick wall. But Forster’s writing, as prose, I often found commonplace. Arguably it comes most alive, is at its most Forsterian, when it launches into those long gassy paragraphs which end up citing Alceste or Ulysses or God, the great intellectual-sounding flights of fancy which are, more often than not, the ripest tripe.


Credit

Howards End by E.M Forster was published by Edward and Arnold in 1910. References are to the 1982 Penguin paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews

Major Barbara by George Bernard Shaw (1905)

‘What is all human conduct but the daily and hourly sale of our souls for trifles?’
(Canny professor of Greek Adolphus Cusins justifying his decision to join her father’s arms company to his fiancée, Barbara, in Major Barbara, Act 3)

‘Arms and The Man’ and ‘Candida’ were disappointing. ‘Major Barbara’ is the first Bernard Shaw play I’ve read that feels really worth reading and staging. Despite its obvious shortcomings, it feels like a major work, if in a slightly idiosyncratic way.

Act 1. Lady Britomart Undershaft’s library

There are three acts. In act 1 we learn that the redoubtable Lady Britomart Undershaft is separated from her husband, the world famous arms manufacturer, Andrew Undershaft. Lady B has three grown-up children:

  • Sarah, ‘slender, bored, and mundane’, is engaged to the silly Bertie Wooster type, Charles Lomax, nicknamed Cholly
  • Barbara, ‘robuster, jollier, much more energetic’, is a Major in the Salvation Army and going out with Adolphus Cusins, nicknamed Dolly, not quite as posh dim as Cholly; he is a Professor of ancient Greek
  • and Stephen

Critics always talk about Shaw’s ‘wit’ but this play is genuinely funny. Not for its wit, though. I’ve just read Oscar Wilde’s plays and Shaw isn’t in the same league. Occasionally a character says something which might be witty if Shaw had taken a few more weeks to hone it. No, what’s funny is the characterisation. Lady Britomart is a very amusing battleaxe who treats Stephen like a poodle which needs training and he jumps at her every command.

The first half or so of the act consists of her telling him the realities of their situation. These comprise two facts. Although she’s separated from Undershaft, the entire household still lives off his money. But now that both Barbara and Sarah look like getting married to unreliable and not-very-wealthy spouses, they will need more money settled on them.

That’s why she’s invited Undershaft to the house this evening. He hasn’t seen his three children for many years and pathetic Stephen is terrified at being confronted by the Great Man after so many years, but Lady B insists the meeting must take place because he and his two sisters are going to need the money.

The second, very odd fact which Lady B reveals to Stephen is that the Undershafts have been running arms factories since the times of King James I (reigned 1603 to 1625) and that each successful Undershaft has adopted a son to succeed him. He might have any number of biological children but the torch can only be passed to an adopted one.

And with this fact – which feels like it’s out of a fairy tale – Lady B calls Stephen’s sisters and their wet boyfriends down from the drawing room and warns them all of Undershaft’s impending arrival. There is a good deal of character comedy regarding Charles Lomax, but it isn’t ‘wit’, it’s crude sitcom-level gags based on the simple notion that Lomax is an upper-class twit who speaks entirely in the slang of an Edwardian Bertie Wooster: ‘Ripping! Oh I say! But really, don’t you know! Must be a regular corker!’

Similarly, when Undershaft arrives, promptly at 9pm, there is some broad humour which has nothing much to do with ‘wit’ because it is farce. This is that Undershaft is so indifferent to his children that he’s forgotten how many he has and initially thinks the two fiancés are his as well. Thus he addresses the other two men as his son, Stephen, before he gets it right third time. He then mixes up Sarah and Barbara. Not much ‘wit’ but it is genuinely funny.

Then there’s a bit of moral lecturing which was boring, with Undershaft shamelessly defending his making money by being an arms manufacturer while Stephen and Barbara mount an attack on his position based on Christianity and morality. They think there is only One Truth, Undershaft thinks there are many ‘truths’. That’s it, really. Not very deep.

But for the sake of having a play at all, Barbara dares Undershaft to come visit her Salvation Army shelter in the East End and Undershaft agrees, on condition that she will visit his munitions factory at Perivale St Andrews. So there you have acts 2 and 3 set up.

Act 2. The yard of the West Ham Salvation Army shelter

Is long and exhausting. It’s set in the yard of the Salvation Army’s Mile End shelter.

First we are introduced to half a dozen working class types down on their luck, being a layabout painter and con artist (Bronterre O’Brien ‘Snobby’ Price), a poor housewife feigning to be a fallen woman (Romola ‘Rummy’ Mitchens), an older labourer fired for being too old (Peter Shirley), and a bully (Bill Walker). Walker has come to find his partner who’s run away from his abusive behaviour. He threatens the others, then pulls the hair and punches the face of one of the working class staff at the shelter, Jenny Hill, who runs inside sobbing.

The striking feature of this scene is that the accents of all the working class characters are depicted using phonetic spelling.

PRICE: Ere, buck up, daddy! She’s fetchin y’a thick slice o breadn treacle, an a mug o skyblue.

Not only that but, on closer inspection, Shaw distinguishes between their Cockney accents. The first 3 or 4 characters are depicted in such a way that most of their words can be spelled conventionally. This is less true of the disruptive figure, the wife beater and violent sceptic, Bill Walker whose speech is that bit rougher:

BILL: If you was my girl and took the word out o me mahth lawk thet, I’d give you suthink you’d feel urtin, so I would. [To Adolphus] You take my tip, mate. Stop er jawr; or you’ll die afore your time. [With intense expression] Wore aht: thets wot you’ll be: wore aht.

Major Barbara emerges and we get an extended and vivid portrait of her ability to upbraid Walker without actually telling him off. Instead he shames him with his actions, adamantly insisting that it is not for her to convert him, it is his own conscience which will convert him. Which makes him wriggle with shame and embarrassment. The older man who’s been let go tells him he’s not so hard, he knows a man could take him on:

SHIRLEY. Todger Fairmile o Balls Pond. Him that won 20 pounds off the Japanese wrastler at the music hall by standin out 17 minutes 4 seconds agen him.

And angry at this insult to his manhood, but also embarrassed by Barbara’s shaming of him, Bill swaggers out of the Army yard to find this Todger Fairmile.

Mr Undershaft arrives and is impressed by Barbara’s handling of these difficult situations. Barbara’s fiancé Cusins is there, helping out, literally banging a big drum as a part of the Army band.

When the others go inside for a moment, Undershaft tells Cusins he knows the latter doesn’t believe any of this stuff, is not a true believer. Cusins readily admits it but says he is interested in all religions. Undershaft tells him about his religion which has two central beliefs: Money and Gunpowder. To be precise:

UNDERSHAFT: There are two things necessary to salvation.
CUSINS [disappointed, but polite]: Ah, the Church Catechism. Charles Lomax also belongs to the Established Church…
UNDERSHAFT: The two things are –
CUSINS: Baptism and –
UNDERSHAFT: No. Money and gunpowder.
CUSINS [surprised, but interested]: That is the general opinion of our governing classes. The novelty is in hearing any man confess it.
UNDERSHAFT: Just so.
CUSINS: Excuse me: is there any place in your religion for honor, justice, truth, love, mercy and so forth?
UNDERSHAFT: Yes: they are the graces and luxuries of a rich, strong, and safe life.
CUSINS: Suppose one is forced to choose between them and money or gunpowder?
UNDERSHAFT: Choose money and gunpowder; for without enough of both you cannot afford the others.
CUSINS: That is your religion?
UNDERSHAFT: Yes.

Can’t be much clearer than that.

The act reaches its climax when Mrs Baines, head of the Army’s local branch, comes out of the shelter to tell Jenny and Barbara the wonderful news that Lord Saxmundham has agreed to make a generous donation to the Army of £5,000. This will keep the shelters open right across London and allow the Army to continue doing its good work. However, there’s a catch. He’ll only give the money on condition they can find five other donors to give £1,000 each, making up £10,000.

Hearing all this, Undershaft sits down to write a check out on the spot. However, some of the others point out that Lord Saxmumdham is the knighted name of Sir Horace Bodger the distiller, whose mass production of alcoholic beverages contributes to the ruin of England’s working classes. And Undershaft, of course, owes his fortune to instruments of death and destruction. This rather inevitably leads to a set-piece debate between Mrs Baines, who says Think of all the good we can do with this money, and Barbara, who says they shouldn’t take it because it is tainted.

One by one all the others come down on the side of taking the money, even her boyfriend Cusins, who is well aware of the multiple ironies or moral dilemmas involved, but jokily calls for a big celebration.

The net effect of all this is devastating on Barbara. During the course of the debate she loses her faith. She ends up taking the Salvation Army lapel badge off her coat and pinning it on her father. The others join the band which is waiting to go marching through the streets to a revivalist meeting, playing Christian hymns, but Barbara is weak with disillusionment and says she won’t be coming.

None of which is helped by thuggish Bill (who’s returned from Canning Town after receiving a beating from Todger) mocking her:

BILL: It’s nao good: you cawnt get rahnd me nah. Aw downt blieve in it; and Awve seen tody that Aw was right… [Turning at the gate] Wot prawce selvytion nah? Ha! Ha!

This is the deciding factor. In Act 3 Barbara spells out what the loss of Bill, who was so close to coming over to her side – to converting – really meant to her:

BARBARA: Do you understand what you have done to me? Yesterday I had a man’s soul in my hand. I set him in the way of life with his face to salvation. But when we took your money he turned back to drunkenness and derision. [With intense conviction] I will never forgive you that. If I had a child, and you destroyed its body with your explosives – if you murdered Dolly with your horrible guns – I could forgive you if my forgiveness would open the gates of heaven to you. But to take a human soul from me, and turn it into the soul of a wolf! that is worse than any murder.

Act 3

Scene 1. Lady Britomart’s library

Lady B and her daughters are present. First dim Lomx then smarter Cusins enter and are both startled that Barbara is, for the first time since they’ve known her, not wearing the uniform of the Salvation Army but the outfit of a conventional Edwardian lady.

Turns out Cusins attended the Salvation Army rally the night before, which was a howling triumph with no fewer than 117 conversions, then went back to Undershaft’s place and got heroically drunk on brandy, all the time delving deeper into Undershaft’s glamorous amorality.

When the servant Morrison announces that Mr Undershaft has arrived, Lady B sends all the young people to get dressed for going out (to the arms factory). This means she is alone when Undershaft enters and enables them to discuss the future. First she makes explicit demands for money for Sarah and Barbara which Undershaft immediately agrees to.

This clears the way to the heart of their conversation which is about Stephen. Lady B insists Undershaft makes Stephen his successor at the arms company but Undershaft refuses, saying 1) Stephen is completely unsuitable 2) anyway, the fairy tale tradition requires that he can only pass on chairmanship in the company to a foundling. At this point Stephen enters and disappoints his mother but delights Undershaft by saying he doesn’t want to run the company or go into business; he wants to be a politician. When Stephen claims that, unlike his father, he has a firm grasp of right and wrong, Undershaft has some fun at his expense.

UNDERSHAFT [hugely tickled]: You don’t say so! What! no capacity for business, no knowledge of law, no sympathy with art, no pretension to philosophy; only a simple knowledge of the secret that has puzzled all the philosophers, baffled all the lawyers, muddled all the men of business, and ruined most of the artists: the secret of right and wrong. Why, man, you’re a genius, master of masters, a god! At twenty-four, too!

And then a satirical dig at politicians such as the English have been making for centuries:

LADY BRITOMART [uneasily]: What do you think he had better do, Andrew?
UNDERSHAFT: Oh, just what he wants to do. He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.

When Stephen claims to be angered by Undershaft’s insult to ‘the government of this country’, Undershaft is given a commanding speech:

UNDERSHAFT [with a touch of brutality]: The government of your country! I am the government of your country: I, and Lazarus. Do you suppose that you and half a dozen amateurs like you, sitting in a row in that foolish gabble shop, can govern Undershaft and Lazarus? No, my friend: you will do what pays US. You will make war when it suits us, and keep peace when it doesn’t. You will find out that trade requires certain measures when we have decided on those measures. When I want anything to keep my dividends up, you will discover that my want is a national need. When other people want something to keep my dividends down, you will call out the police and military. And in return you shall have the support and applause of my newspapers, and the delight of imagining that you are a great statesman. Government of your country! Be off with you, my boy, and play with your caucuses and leading articles and historic parties and great leaders and burning questions and the rest of your toys. I am going back to my counting house to pay the piper and call the tune.

Again we may ask whether very much has changed, especially the reference to the right-wing newspapers which are little more than fronts for the interests of big corporations and the super rich. In fact after Stephen delivers another speech full of canting clichés Undershaft satirically claims he knows just the right career for a pontificating know-nothing – journalism!

All the other characters enter and variously moan and complain about being forced to go on this day outing to a factory. When Cusins asks Undershaft if he is a brutal boss, if he maintains rigorous discipline, Undershaft delivers another long set-piece speech which is an interesting piece of social history, because it describes the role of snobbery in keeping the English working classes in line. The truth is that they repress themselves with little or no help required from their exploiters:

CUSINS: But Jones has to be kept in order. How do you maintain discipline among your men?
UNDERSHAFT: I don’t. They do. You see, the one thing Jones won’t stand is any rebellion from the man under him, or any assertion of social equality between the wife of the man with 4 shillings a week less than himself and Mrs Jones! Of course they all rebel against me, theoretically. Practically, every man of them keeps the man just below him in his place. I never meddle with them. I never bully them. I don’t even bully Lazarus. I say that certain things are to be done; but I don’t order anybody to do them. I don’t say, mind you, that there is no ordering about and snubbing and even bullying. The men snub the boys and order them about; the carmen snub the sweepers; the artisans snub the unskilled laborers; the foremen drive and bully both the laborers and artisans; the assistant engineers find fault with the foremen; the chief engineers drop on the assistants; the departmental managers worry the chiefs; and the clerks have tall hats and hymnbooks and keep up the social tone by refusing to associate on equal terms with anybody. The result is a colossal profit, which comes to me.

Scene 2. Among the high explosive shed at the arsenal of Messrs Undershaft and Lazarus near the model town of Perivale St Andrews

Barbara is on the firestep beside an enormous cannon in a set strewn with munitions and some of the dummies they use for target practice. The other characters enter one by one and share their amazement at what a model town it is, with wonderful amenities for the workers, who all love working here and are proud of their master, Undershaft, being such a cunning old rascal.

There is some ripe comedy when it turns out that dim Lomax lit a cigarette and carelessly threw away the match while in the high explosive shed. And again when Lady B says she was presented with a bouquet in the William Morris Labour Church, which contains a quote from the great communist about no man being good enough to be another man’s master.

UNDERSHAFT: It shocked the men at first, I am afraid. But now they take no more notice of it than of the ten commandments in church.

In fact this scene is packed with incident. The major one is that the Greek professor, Cusins, the one who got plastered with Undershaft the night before, and has been ribbing him and calling him Machiavelli, well he reveals – to everyone’s amazement – that he is, technically, legally, a foundling, as his Australian parents aren’t legally married. This leads to an extended scene where he and Undershaft haggle about the terms on which he, Cusins, will join the firm, Cusins driving a surprisingly hard bargain which Undershaft is forced, reluctantly, to accept.

But when this is all done it turns out to be just the prelude to a massive set piece exposition of his beliefs by Undershaft. The main thrust of this appears to be Shaw’s own belief, because it is anticipated in the long preface. It is the idea that the greatest crime of our age is poverty, far worse, more degrading, more blighting of society than ‘crime’, afflicting entire cities, stunting the lives of millions.

This turns into a set piece argument with Barbara because she begins to explain the benefits of her charitable work but Undershaft brutally cuts over her, saying that centuries of religious cant have done nothing to end poverty. What ends poverty is giving people a decent job and decent homes.

UNDERSHAFT: Not by words and dreams; but by thirty-eight shillings a week, a sound house in a handsome street, and a permanent job. In three weeks he will have a fancy waistcoat; in three months a tall hat and a chapel sitting; before the end of the year he will shake hands with a duchess at a Primrose League meeting, and join the Conservative Party.
BARBARA: And will he be the better for that?
UNDERSHAFT: You know he will. Don’t be a hypocrite, Barbara. He will be better fed, better housed, better clothed, better behaved; and his children will be pounds heavier and bigger. That will be better than an American cloth mattress in a shelter, chopping firewood, eating bread and treacle, and being forced to kneel down from time to time to thank heaven for it.

All good knockabout stuff but at the same time, much the same issue is central to our politics 120 years later as both Labour and Conservatives promise to get more people into work and raise productivity etc etc. Which suggests the weakness of Undershaft’s position which is that it is applicable to some workers, who manage to get into regular well-paid work but simply untrue of a large number of workers who either can’t get regular work, can only get part-time or zero hours jobs, or are too sick and ill to hold down a job. These categories of people are still with us, 120 years later, and still triggering all kinds of useless projects and comments from hapless politicians and windy commentators. But it never changes.

Meanwhile, back in the play, Undershaft continues his rant, moving beyond his point about poverty (which is incontestably true) to assert that sermons and leading articles and even voting never changed anything. Only guns change things.

UNDERSHAFT: Vote! Bah! When you vote, you only change the names of the cabinet. When you shoot, you pull down governments, inaugurate new epochs, abolish old orders and set up new.

The play was set less than a year after the 1905 Russian revolution, a people’s uprising which forced the Tsar to establish the State Duma, the multi-party system, and the Russian Constitution of 1906 so Undershaft is speaking with the force of recent and momentous events behind his arguments.

Anyway, Shaw shapes the narrative so that it comes down to Cusin having to make a choice between Undershaft and Barbara, choose business or the business of souls. After a lot of flannel he throws in his lot with Undershaft, mournfully thinking he has lost his true love.

But the last pages of the play are intended as a surprise because it turns out Barbara approves of his choice. She has seen through the narrowness of the Salvation Army mission just to feed the poor and realises there are men’s souls to save here, in this modern new town, the souls of the well-fed and snobbish and sanctimonious. She will marry Cusins and live here and make a difference of a different sort.

And with her ringing and inspirational declaration of intent, the play ends.

Wit versus humour

As mentioned, most of the comic moments are (in my opinion) broad and farcical in nature (Lomax’s dimwittedness) but it would be inaccurate to deny that there are also some moments of snappy repartee or one liners, epigrams and bons mots. Take this exchange which I suppose an Edwardian audience would have found funny because a bit risqué.

LOMAX: Now the claims of the Church of England –
LADY BRITOMART: That’s enough, Charles. Speak of something suited to your mental capacity.
LOMAX: But surely the Church of England is suited to all our capacities.

Would the implication that the Church of England is a rather dumb form of religion and/or Lomax’s dimness have got a laugh?

The following is a kind of ghostly echo of Wildean wit. When Cusins explains that Undershaft didn’t let it be announced at the revivalist meeting that it was he who had donated £5,000 to the cause dim Lomax says what a noble thing to do but clever Cusins says, No, Undershaft explained to him that if word got out then every charity in England would come down on him ‘like kites in a battlefield’. All of which leads up to Lady Britomart rounding off the passage with a mot:

LADY BRITOMART: That’s Andrew all over. He never does a proper thing without giving an improper reason for it.

Later on, Undershaft is given a good one-liner:

UNDERSHAFT: My dear, you are the incarnation of morality. Your conscience is clear and your duty done when you have called everybody names.

Lady B is given a Wildean speech which contains a kind of panoramic critique of the superficiality of upper class English culture. After she has criticised Lomax for talking drivel she goes on:

LADY BRITOMART: In good society in England, Charles, men drivel at all ages by repeating silly formulas with an air of wisdom. Schoolboys make their own formulas out of slang, like you. When they reach your age, and get political private secretaryships and things of that sort, they drop slang and get their formulas out of The Spectator or The Times. You had better confine yourself to The Times. You will find that there is a certain amount of tosh about The Times; but at least its language is reputable.

One hundred and twenty years later, right-wing dimwits still get their formulas out of The Spectator or The Times, the only change is that neither is now reputable.

It’s not so much that the play is full of witty moments like this because it isn’t. The humour is displayed more in the underlying ironies of the situations, of the juxtapositions of people with such clashing opinions and characters. The set-piece speeches by Lady B, Barbara or Undershaft, especially in the latter part of Act 3, are quite thrilling but the humour underlying them derives from the sly ironies, the undercutting of people’s speeches by other characters with satire or drollery, in which the play abounds. It is very cleverly done, often very funny, and leaves an impression of warmth and humour.

Thoughts

Theatre critics are paid to say things like ‘as relevant now as it was in Shaw’s own day’ but this is just boilerplate truism. Any play about war is always relevant because war is always with us. Ukraine, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, all round the Middle East and North Africa men are firing devastating weapons which are assembled in factories by people working for capitalists making a killing.

In fact not just the central subject of the play, war, but the closely related topics of poverty, hunger, the blight of alcoholism, domestic violence and toxic masculinity, they’re all still with us aren’t they, and always will be.

On the one hand it was maybe brave or striking or notable that Shaw wrote a play about a cynical arms’ manufacturer clashing with his principled Christian daughter, especially in a theatrical culture dominated by drawing room dramas about fallen women and shameful secrets etc. Maybe it was, at the time, radically provocative and controversial. And, the more you read through it, the richer and more complex the interplay of character and the multiple ironies becomes.

But on the other hand, it feels hopelessly cartoony and there’s something relentlessly simplistic about the whole thing. Take the painting-by-numbers confrontation at the end of Act 2 where Mrs Baines, Jenny and the rest are happy to take Undershaft’s money for their charity work and only Barbara sees how immoral it is. Take the comic book counter-intuitive fact that the factory Barbara thought would be strangled by smoke and peopled by demons turns out to be a model town with outstanding amenities, no poverty and a grateful populace. Not to mention that the central plotline is based on the fairy tale theme of the rich man who must pass on his fortune to a foundling.

Some of the speeches and some of the issues raised ‘cut through’ to the modern reader but they are embedded in a work which, at the same time, feels strangely childish. The scene where Barbara deprecates her father signing the check to the Salvation Army feels far too pat and simplistic. The whole situation comes from a children’s book, you expect it to have Dickens-style illustrations.

You only have to compare Shaw’s high-spirited simplifications with the role of a modern British arms company in the present context, now, in 2024, supplying weapons and munitions to Israel or Ukraine to feel the shock of the real world.

I suppose Shaw is to be praised for raising all manner of political and social issues in his plays but the ones I’ve read feel like toytown entertainments: clever up to a point, funny and well-shaped, twinkling with sly ironies, but ultimately useless for thinking about the issues he raises, as they exist in the modern world, because they’re too simple-minded.

P.S.

Compare Shaw’s light entertainment with the contemporary and unrelenting anti-war art of Peter Kennard.


Related links

Bernard Shaw reviews

Salisbury: Victorian Titan by Andrew Roberts (1999) part 1

‘Matters are gloomy – I never saw them gloomier.’
(Lord Salisbury in March 1885, but could have been at any time in his long life, quoted on page 318 of ‘Salisbury: Victorian Titan’)

‘The first of duties is to be pachydermatous’ (p.286)

The great thing about Tory writers is they are completely untroubled by theories, ideas or doubts. Living in a dream world of privilege and entitlement, they radiate confidence and suavity. This explains why the writings of so many Conservatives are often so clear and attractive. It explains one of the reasons why Andrew Roberts is so attracted to the hero of this huge biography – for his adamantine certainty:

Unlike so many conservative leaders before and since, Salisbury was a true, dyed-in-the-wool Tory, entirely lacking in either middle-class guilt or ideological doubt. (p.365)

Andrew Roberts is an accomplished biographer and journalist with a very strong Tory bent. He comes from the same kind of privileged, public school background as his subject (though not, admittedly, from the same kind of grand and venerable old family Salisbury came from).

Roberts attended Cranleigh public school then went on to Cambridge, where he chaired the Cambridge University Conservative Association. He has had a distinguished career as a freelance i.e. non-academic, historian, writing 19 books, including four about Winston Churchill, along with countless papers and articles. He writes regularly for the Sunday Telegraph and The Spectator. He lives in Knightsbridge. In 2022 he was created Baron Roberts of Belgravia by that reputable politician Boris Johnson (who has also, coincidentally, authored a book about Winston Churchill; I think everyone should write a biography of Winston Churchill, at least once in their lives) and so took his seat in the House of Lords draped in much the same ermine cloak as Lord Salisbury wore. You get the picture.

This is a blockbuster of a political biography, enormously researched and enormous sized, weighing in at 852 pages. It covers all the political issues its subject was involved in, in extraordinary detail, giving daily, sometimes hour-by-hour descriptions of changing events and opinions. And yet it is written with such tremendous clarity and verve, with such an authoritative presentation of the facts in such a logical order, presented in such beautifully lucid prose and with such amiable good humour, that the pages fly by.

Lord Salisbury

This is a blockbuster biography of Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury KG GCVO PC FRS DL (1830 to 1903), British statesman and Conservative politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom three times, for a total of over thirteen years. He was also Foreign Secretary before and during most of his tenure, holding these posts at arguably the high peak of the British Empire, 1886 to 1892 and then 1895 to 1902.

Salisbury’s forebears were the Cecils, advisers to Queen Elizabeth I, who built the imposing Hatfield House in Hertfordshire. The 7th Earl of Salisbury, politician and courtier, was raised to the marquessate, becoming the Marquis of Salisbury, by George III in 1789. (There are currently 34 marquises in Great Britain and Ireland.)

The first Marquis of Salisbury was a solid Tory, as was his son, the 2nd marquis, born in 1791, and so was his son, our hero, when he himself became the 3rd marquis on the death of his father in 1868. Cecil’s own father, the second marquis, had been a successful politician in his own right, Lord Privy Seal in 1852 and Lord President of the Council between 1858 and 1859.

Anyway, this is why Roberts refers to our hero by the family name of ‘Cecil’ in the first past of the book, up till the moment when his elder brother died, in 1865, at which point he inherited the title of Viscount Cranborne, from which point Roberts refers to him as ‘Cranborne’. When his father died in 1868 and he inherited the marquisate to become the 3rd Marquis of Salisbury, from that point onwards Roberts refers to him as ‘Salisbury’.

  • 1830 to 1865 – Cecil
  • 1865 to 1868 – Cranborne
  • 1868 to 1902 – Salisbury

In 1821 Cecil’s father had made a strategic marriage into the wealthy Gascoyne family, marrying Frances Mary Gascoyne, daughter of Bamber Gascoyne of Childwall Hall, Lancashire, which explains why the family name became Gascoyne-Cecil.

Lonely, sensitive and sad

Cecil’s siblings were either a lot older or younger than him, his father was away in London a lot, so he had a lonely childhood, wandering the echoing corridors of Hatfield House, his only company the house’s 40 or so servants and its vast library. He became a book addict.

Cecil was sent to Eton where he was so mercilessly bullied that he wrote his father a letter begging to be allowed home, and Roberts includes excerpts from his letters with quite harrowing accounts of being punched, kicked in the shins and spat on by older boys.

Cecil was lonely, hyper-sensitive, often depressed and his boyhood experiences made him an extreme pessimist about human nature, always ready to believe the worst, convinced that just beneath the civilised veneer lurked the savage, a belief he saw confirmed by, for example, the savage fighting of the American Civil War. ‘The optimistic view of politics assumes that there must be some remedy for every political ill,’ he wrote in 1872. But what if there isn’t?

High Tory conservatism

This extreme pessimism formed the basis of Cecil’s arch conservatism: we must hang on to what we’ve got because all change and innovation risks opening the door to democracy, which leads to nationalism, which leads to war, which leads to barbarism.

Cecil didn’t just go up to Oxford but to Oxford’s poshest college, Christ’s Church. It was the time of the Oxford Movement to restore quasi-Catholic decorations to Anglican belief and services. This attracted him because it gave the C of E a more solid foundation in the central tradition of Christianity. At Oxford he crystallised into an arch conservative in religion, domestic politics and foreign affairs. High Anglican, High Tory. He was vehemently against all forms of change or innovation, in any sphere of life; after all, he was doing just fine, so why change anything?

That said, Cecil was too sensitive to complete his degree at Oxford and so was awarded an honourable 4th. But then academic qualifications didn’t matter. Oxford had done its job of putting the finishing touches to another deep-dyed reactionary member of the English aristocracy.

Perhaps surprisingly, given that he was a lifelong bibliophile, Cecil was solidly, thumpingly philistine, in that dim conservative aristocratic way. He didn’t like contemporary fiction, he disliked theatre and ballet and had no time for art. He didn’t even like music very much. He was also notoriously scruffy and badly dressed all through his life, even on state occasions, even when meeting royalty.

All this is what makes Cecil so funny, a very amusing caricature of a huffing, disapproving old buffer. Given his family name of Gascoyne-Cecil, I wondered whether the extended family of doddery old aristocrats of the Ascoyne D’Ascoyne family in the Ealing comedy ‘Kind Hearts and Coronets’ were based on him.

In line with tradition, Cecil was packed off on the Grand Tour of the Mediterranean sights. But then, a little unusually, he continued on to the southern hemisphere and visited Britain’s main colonies there, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand.

Like upper-class Englishmen before and since, Cecil got on well with the ‘natives’, conceiving an admiration for the ‘Kaffirs’ in SA and the Maoris in New Zealand, liking to think that he detected in them a certain aristocratic independence and natural superiority, much like his own. Just as predictably, he complained about the ghastly, awful, vulgar middle class people he was forced to mix with on the long sea voyages between these places. He hated the Boers of South Africa who he thought crude slave-drivers, an antipathy which mattered 40 years later when he was to be Prime Minister during the Boer War.

In Australia and New Zealand he saw how white men behave when far removed from the steadying hand of England with its hierarchy of Queen, Lord lieutenants, justices of the peace etc, which was appallingly. In colonial towns like Melbourne and Sydney he saw drunkenness, prostitution, violence, and unfettered lust for gold and money. It confirmed him in his High Toryism: human nature is essentially barbarous and needs to be restrained, by order, disciple, hierarchy, an established church, monarchy etc.

Married and elected MP

Within ten weeks of returning he was ‘elected’ unopposed i.e. nominated, to the ‘pocket borough’ of Stamford (p.20).

Surprisingly, he married not for money or to make an aristocratic alliance, but for love of a middle-class woman, Georgina Alderson, much against his father’s wishes, in 1857. Cut out of the family inheritance, he turned to journalism to support his wife and growing family (he quickly had seven children) and wrote a prolific amount, mainly reviewing and articles in a wide range of publications, notably The Saturday Review. The period 1857 to 1866 (i.e. from age 27 to 36) were his Journalism Years.

The journalism years, 1857 to 1866

Roberts does a great job of showing the themes and attitudes which informed Cecil’s huge output, demonstrating his fierce satire and sarcastic opinions on everything from women’s fashion to foreign affairs (his policy was to ‘encourage supporters and anger opponents,’ p.261). He was a fierce opponent of nationalisms on the continent and prophetically warned against the rise of German nationalism; scratch the sophisticated veneer of a German professor, he wrote, and you find the same barbarism which transacted the Thirty Years War. The twentieth century was to prove him right.

Cecil was anti-slavery but supported the Confederacy against the Union in the American Civil War because of a deep dislike of Americans as a whole, and of Abraham Lincoln in particular. He thought Lincoln’s actions during the war, such as closing the free press, suspending habeas corpus and interning up to 14,000 political opponents, was exactly what you got if you let democracy run rampant i.e. tyranny.

He also thought that letting the Confederacy win would have the benefit of splitting the US into two countries, both a lot weaker and less of a rival for Britain. He also worried that if the Union won the war, it would attack Canada next.

Roberts’ descriptions of Cecil’s vehement and bigoted views makes for hilarious reading. Cecil had strong views about everything, which he expressed in often very funny satire and sarcasm. For example, he hated the Irish. While happily admitting that England had behaved terribly to the Irish for centuries and possibly even owed the Irish reparations, he still wrote waspish satire such as that Ireland ‘had given us foreign invasions, domestic rebellions, and in quieter times the manly sport of landlord shooting’ (p.53).

Having just read Paul Collier’s book, The Bottom Billion, which highlights the need for capital investment in the poorest African countries, it’s interesting to see that Cecil thought this was precisely the trouble with 19th century Ireland too, that investors didn’t want to invest because of the poor returns and, above all, the lack of security i.e. threat of violence. Interesting to think of 19th century Ireland as experiencing the same problems as 21st century Africa.

So regarding Ireland, in Salisbury’s view, if inward investment was the solution, then it was vital to establish security and the rule of law in order to attract investors; in which case, the continual agrarian unrest in Ireland had to be ruthlessly crushed.

Cecil approved of Ireland’s high migration rate and, indeed, looked forward to a time when every single Irish person had emigrated and the island could be populated with law-abiding Scots and Saxons: ‘the sooner they are gone the better’ (p.53). Mind you, he was just as scathing about the Orangemen and ‘the special fanaticism of Ulster’ which is, of course, still causing trouble one hundred and sixty years later.

Another major issue was electoral reform on which Cecil had a very blunt utilitarian view: if the working classes were given the vote they would elect radicals who would redistribute wealth via fierce taxation on the rich. So in defence of his class, and out of naked self interest, Cecil was against extending the franchise. It wasn’t that the ruling class was morally better than the plebs – he wrote plenty of satirical articles criticising the lifestyle of the Victorian rich – but that the leisure and education they enjoyed made them likely to be better, more disinterested legislators, who would act for the national good, compared to radicals who, if elected, would owe their position to pleasing i.e. bribing, the electorate, probably by levying unjust taxes on the wealthy i.e. Cecil and his class.

(Cf Richard Shannon’s excellent book, The Crisis of Imperialism 1865 to 1915, which also drums home how both conservatives and opponents believed that the 1832 settlement had produced a nice balance between the interests of the landed aristocracy, the new business-based bourgeoisie, and the skilled working class. It wasn’t extending the franchise to the lower middle classes and rest of the working class they objected to, as such (although some did), it was upsetting this delicate balance by giving too much prominence to one particular part of the population, which they thought risked toppling the country into either anarchy or demagoguery.)

Cecil also pointed to the baleful example of America where, once every four years, the entire administration ground to a halt while the political parties competed in offering bribes (tax cuts, favourable government policies) to the electorate.

Timeless issues

The appeal of reading about old politics like this is that as well as the obvious appeal of explaining how political leaders behaved as they did and so helping to explain how and why we got from there to here – it also takes you way out of your comfort zone and presents you with completely different ways of thinking about all sorts of political problems. In my opinion this is useful because closely observing how people in the past were prisoners of their age’s assumptions, their level of technological, economic and social development, sheds light on how we, in our own time, are just as much prisoners of our technological, economic and social conventions. It prompts the thought that our descendants will view us with the same curiosity, puzzlement and disgust as we view the Victorians.

And it’s always disconcerting to learn how few of those issues have really changed: electoral reform; trade reform; worrying about economic rivals; worrying about our poor standard of education; squabbles about the rights of trade unions and strikers; managing clean water and sewerage; difficulties with Ireland; small wars in Africa; instability in the Middle East; how to fend off the growing threat from Russia. Ring any bells? Plus ça change… (a phrase which was coined in 1849 and itself hasn’t changed).

Using the Saturday Review

By the time I got to the end of the book I realised a simple central fact about it which is that Roberts uses Salisbury’s early journalism as a central structuring device. The main structure of the book is straightforwardly chronological, he covers all the events in Salisbury’s career as they occur. But almost every single one of these topics or themes is introduced with a quote from a Saturday Review article which Salisbury wrote about it. Sometimes, 10, 20 or 30 years later, and now in power, his early opinion as evinced in a Review article shows the continuity of his thinking; sometimes, on the contrary, the quote from an article shows how either his thinking or the situation has changed.

But either way, Roberts uses the fact that he has clearly read and carefully annotated all of Salisbury’s early journalism as a kind of running commentary on his later career. Thus almost every incident of Cecil’s long political career is seen from two perspectives: that of the cocksure young journalist writing in humorous, general, cynical terms; and that of the older, experienced statesman, acting on experience. Two voices, two perspectives. Or a running commentary on the mature politician by the cocky young tyro.

Viscount Cranborne

In June 1865 (two months after the end of the American civil war) Cecil’s older brother died, aged just 42, and so Cecil inherited the courtesy title Viscount Cranborne, he and his wife becoming Lord and Lady Cranborne. From now on Roberts refers to him as ‘Cranborne’. From now on Cranborne enjoyed the income associated with the title and so his journalistic activities wound down, as Roberts demonstrates with a graphic statistic: before his brother’s death he wrote 589 articles for the Saturday Review; afterwards, he wrote just 19, mostly to whip up support for policies he was trying to promote.

Four months later Lord Palmerston died and the numerous competing forces in British politics which he had been holding in check were let loose. Lord Derby and Disraeli formed a joint leadership of the Conservative Party, Derby in the Lords, Dizzy in the Commons. Cranborne grew to dislike and distrust ‘Dizzy’. He was the lead figure in the attempt to water down if not cancel Disraeli’s reform bill of 1867.

In 1868 Cranborne’s father died, aged 77, and he inherited Hatfield House and all its incomes, becoming the 3rd Marquis of Salisbury and, of course, being forced out of the House of Commons and into the House of Lords.

Cecil was a surprisingly ramshackle father who let his kids run wild. They all remember a boisterous sociable happy childhood, the exact opposite of his. Lady Salisbury grew into a formidable hostess and manager of the Hatfield Estate, which employed well over 100 staff. Parliamentary colleagues nicknamed him ‘Buffalo’ because he was big (well over 6 foot), solemn and obstinate. In 1870 he built a big ugly red-brick holiday home near Dieppe on the Channel coast of France, naming it Chalet Cecil.

Victorian Prime Ministers

Lord Derby – February 1858 to June 1859 (Tory)
Lord Palmerston – June 1859 to October 1865 (Whig)
Lord John Russell – October 1865 to June 1866 (Whig)
Lord Derby – June 1866 to February 1868 (Tory)
Benjamin Disraeli – February 1868 to December 1868 (Tory)
William Gladstone – December 1868 to February 1874 (Liberal)
Benjamin Disraeli – February 1874 to April 1880 (Tory)
William Gladstone – April 1880 to June 1885 (Liberal)
Lord Salisbury – June 1885 to January 1886 (Conservative)
William Gladstone – February 1886 to July 1886 (Liberal)
Lord Salisbury – July 1886 to August 1892 (Conservative)
William Gladstone – August 1892 to March 1894 (Liberal)
Lord Rosebery – March 1894 to June 1895 (Liberal)
Lord Salisbury – June 1895 to July 1902 (Conservative)

Posts Salisbury held

Member of Parliament: 1853 to 1866

He never canvased to be an MP but was simply appointed one by the Earl of Exeter to a pocket borough.

Secretary of State for India: 1866 to 1867

In 1865, his older brother died, he inherited the title of Cranborne, and in 1866 Disraeli appointed him Secretary of State for India.

Salisbury was blamed for mishandling the Orissa famine of 1866, a disaster which affected the east coast of India from Madras northwards. At least a million Indians died, roughly one third of the population of the area. New to his brief, Salisbury believed his officials and experts who said it wasn’t serious, until it was too late, leaving him with a lifelong suspicion of experts. It made him quick off the mark and insistent on spending whatever it took to save lives in later Indian famines. The scale of the disaster made educated Indians realise maybe Britain wasn’t the all-powerful protector she pretended to be. The famine was one among many triggers for Indian nationalism.

Fear, awe and respect

Salisbury thought Britain’s rule over India was achieved by psychological means. There was no way 250,000 (mostly native) troops could hold down 250 million people if they chose to rebel against them. Earlier India officials such as Macauley had recommended that a select number of upper class Indians be educated, in English, up to western standards, in order to become intermediaries between western and Indian culture. Salisbury was sceptical about even this colonial, patronising idea, in fact he thought it was catastrophic since it just produced a class of ‘seditious article writers’. He thought India was vital to Britain’s prestige in the world i.e. vis-a-vis the other powers, and must be kept down by ‘fear, awe and respect for the law’ (p.139).

As Secretary of State for India, where British resources depended to a large degree on prestige rather than actual resources employed, Salisbury…was one of the first people to appreciate quite the extent to which militarily the British Empire was a gigantic bluff. (p.178)

And, criticising the more enlightened policies of Gladstone’s Liberals, Cecil declared in a speech that:

‘They will not learn that these tribes, these vast uncivilised multitudes, are not governed merely by the sword. They are governed by the imagination. They are governed by their fears.’ (p.293)

As Roberts summarises:

He stood out against the Whig ethos propagated by Macauley and others that Britain’s duty was simply to prepare Indians for eventual self-government. In Salisbury’s view, India was a prize that should remain Britain’s until it was forcible wrested from her. (p.216)

The 1867 Reform Act

The big issue was electoral reform in which Disraeli dished i.e. scuppered the Whigs. Salisbury made himself a master of electoral statistics and predicted reform would eliminate support for Tories. Salisbury made a big speech attacking Disraeli for rubbishing the Whig bill in 1866 then introducing one which was even more radical in 1867. Disraeli calculated that the newly enfranchised middle classes would be grateful to the Tories. Salisbury had done the math and said they wouldn’t and they weren’t. In fact he was fanatical about research, and always read everything he could get his hands on about whatever issue was at hand, electoral reform in 1867, and then again in 1885, being classic examples.

In opposition: 1868 to 1874

Gladstone’s Liberals won the 1868 election and were in government for 6 long years which they devoted to reforming all aspects of British law and society

Cranborne’s father died and he inherited the title of Lord Salisbury, the big house at Hatfield and a seat in the House of Lords. Roberts describes the ecclesiastical and political issues around his election as Chancellor of the University of Oxford, the core of high Anglican high Toryism.

Roberts also has a passage describing Salisbury’s unexpected interest in new technology. He was an early adopter of electricity and built a laboratory at Hatfield House where he carried out quite serious experiments about light. Cecil had a surprisingly scientific openness, for example he refused to be drawn into attacking Darwin after the ‘Origin of Species’ was published.

Secretary of State for India: 1874 to 1878

Queen Victorian wished to be awarded the title Empress of India was sharpened when a newly united Germany, after its victory over France, declared itself an empire in 1871, so there as a danger that her daughter, Vicky, who had married the Crown Prince of Prussia, would take precedence over her, a mere queen. Also the Tsar made a state visit to Britain in 1874 after the marriage of his daughter to the Duke of Edinburgh. In other words, everyone else was, or was becoming, an emperor – why not her?

The delicate handling of the issue, for British public opinion, abroad, and, of course, in India itself, are covered by Robert with typical thoroughness. He describes the great hou-ha that was held across India on the declaration on New Year’s Day 1877 (p.215).

The extremely complicated manoeuvring during the crisis triggered by uprisings against Ottoman rule in Bulgaria and Serbia in the summer of 1876. The Turks crushed the Bulgarians with great brutality, sending in mercenaries (the notorious bashi-bazouks) who were allowed to rape, pillage and murder at will. Gladstone publicised all this with his famous pamphlet of September 1876, ‘Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East’.

You have to understand that this was all caught up in the long-term consequences of the Crimean War. The Crimean War had been fought to prevent Russia’s extension of its influence into the Balkans i.e. further into Europe, at the expense of the Ottomans. The Treaty of Paris which concluded it pledged the allies i.e. France and Britain, to come to the support of the Ottomans.

The point of a detailed account like Roberts’ is to take you right into the Cabinet of the Prime Minister of the day, Disraeli, and describe in very great detail the different positions of the 12 men who comprised it. And this issue split them up into half a dozen factions as the crisis dragged on and a host of different responses, political, diplomatic and military all emerged.

Basically, some of the Cabinet thought the Ottoman Empire was irrevocably doomed to collapse and so we should never have pledged to prop it up. This led to the view that the Crimean War should have never been fought and was a colossal mistake. But this didn’t mean we supported Russia and its restless aims for expansion. Some supported Russia but opposed any expansion of its territory or power. Some thought we should continue to prop up ‘the sick man of Europe’. Some trod a middle way, trying to find a formula to support the Christians in the Balkans – the Bulgarians and Serbs – without insulting the Turks and without allowing undue Russian influence. Some went to an extreme and thought the European powers should partition the Ottoman Empire and civil servants in European capitals began drawing up suggestions for who would get where.3

Queen Victoria was a confirmed Russophobe. I was startled to learn that she threatened to abdicate no fewer than five times through the course of the crisis, leading Salisbury to speculate privately about her sanity (p.174). Disraeli had made it his policy to suck up to Her Majesty, maybe because it was good politics to have the monarch behind you, maybe because he saw it as his duty as ‘a minister of the Crown’, maybe because he liked sucking up.

Foremost in everyone’s minds was how to keep the route to India, the jewel in the British Crown, open and secure, but there were multiple answers to this problem: the most extreme was letting Russia invade and conquer through Bulgaria and down into Ottoman territory until she, possibly, took Constantinople and restored it as an Eastern orthodox Christian capital, as Russian extremists wanted to. In that case, some Cabinet members were for a) pre-emptively seizing Constantinople ourselves or b) sending an Expeditionary force to seize the Dardanelles i.e. the gateway from the Black Sea. The point of this would be to prevent the Russian fleet from freely passing through it and staking a claim in the Eastern Mediterranean. A simpler route would be to annex Egypt, thus securing the south east Mediterranean and the Suez Canal. The rearguard position was continuing to prop up the sick man – and our power and influence in the region – hoping something would come along.

The enormous pleasure of a book like Roberts’s is that he takes you right into the detail of this complex chess game, in which everyone – not just Russians, Ottomans, and neighbours like Austria – had multiple points of views and proposals, but even within the British cabinet there were multiple beliefs and strategies and that these kept changing and evolving as the situation changed.

Thus Salisbury was chosen to attend the Constantinople Conference (December 1876 to January 1877) to try and sort out the crisis, very usefully meeting the heads of all the important states en route (including huge, coarse, very clever Count von Bismarck), but Roberts shows in great detail how his ostensible aim of securing peace between Turkey and Russia was secretly sabotaged by Disraeli and his ally Lord Derby who, along with the Queen, loathed Russia, but couldn’t be seen to be supporting the perpetrators of the atrocities. Roberts’ suggests that Disraeli’s reputation for two-faced slipperiness was well deserved.

Anyway, the peace conference failed and so Salisbury’s mission failed, but many commentators in the press realised that he had been set up to fail by his boss. It was a hugely useful experience of the realities of power and diplomacy for a man who was to become Foreign Secretary then Prime Minister.

And so war between Russia and Turkey broke out, lasting from April 1877 to Match 1878, with Russia recruiting Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro to her side. Russia won. Her army fought all the way to the gates of Constantinople at which point the western powers intervened again.

In victory Russia reclaimed provinces in the Caucasus but more importantly, the principalities of Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro formally proclaimed their independence from the Ottoman Empire and, after almost five centuries of Ottoman domination, the Principality of Bulgaria emerged as a free nation.

So there’s one layer of pleasure to this narrative, which is watching the drama of high politics play out like an episode of House of Cards. But there’s a huge additional pleasure deriving from Salisbury’s Eeyorish character, always pessimistically convinced of the worse – ‘Things that have been secure for centuries are secure no longer,’ (p.274) – a doom-laden attitude which very often converts into hilariously satirical attitudes and observations. Roberts cites from Salisbury’s letters and dispatches countless examples of ironic reversals and witty sarcasms, a permanent attitude of ‘amused cynicism’ (p.215).

His unexpected juxtapositions aren’t on the level of Oscar Wilde’s deliberate paradoxes, but indicate the taste for aristocratic humour which characterised the age:

‘General Ignatiev is an amusing man without much regard for truth and an inordinate vanity which our Embassy takes every opportunity of wounding.’ (p.159)

Salisbury was an inveterate phrase-maker’ (p.247). Epigrams came naturally to him:

‘No one is fit to be trusted with a secret who is not prepared, if necessary, to tell an untruth to defend it.’ (p.194

Good government avoids one of the causes of hate; but it does not inspire love.’ (p.214)

And ran in the family. Salisbury’s daughter, Maud, accompanied him on his journey across Europe to Turkey, and kept a diary. Roberts cites her being told by beaming Ottoman officials that they were travelling on had been built by the Emperor Constantine in the fourth century, to which she politely enquired whether anyone had mended it since.

Beaconsfieldism

In 1876 Queen Victorian rewarded Disraeli for his toadying services to the nation, by making him Earl of Beaconsfield. From this point onwards contemporaries, and Roberts, refer to him as ‘Beaconsfield’.

From 1878 to 1880 the leading opponent of the Tories, William Gladstone, gave a series of speeches as he campaigned to win the parliamentary seat of Midlothian in Scotland. There were 6 very long speeches and over twenty shorter ones, addressed to halls full of thousands of voters, which harped on four main themes. He charged Disraeli’s administration with: financial incompetence, neglect of domestic legislation, and mismanagement of foreign affairs. In particular he charged Disraeli with a strategy of distracting public opinion from the economic and financial problems of Britain by means of foreign adventures. Gladstone gave the name Beaconsfieldism to ‘the immoral, bullying acquisition of territory almost for its own sake’ (p.212). One Tory critic defined it as: ‘occupy, fortify, grab and brag’ (p.227).

Foreign Secretary: 1878 to 1880

As mentioned above the recurring concerns of Britain in foreign affairs were: continual wars, unrest and Russian threat in the Balkans; management of Egypt and her southern extension, Sudan; management of South Africa and fractious relations with the Boers and the irritating little states like the Transvaal which kept being claimed or created with resulting tribal wars where we had to decide where we stood. And above all else, the running sore of Ireland.

  • Russo-Turkish War (April 1877 to March 1878)
  • Second Afghan War (November 1878 to September 1880)
  • First Zulu War (January to July 1879)
  • Egypt

Congress of Berlin

Roberts gives an intricate account of the multi-layered diplomacy which brought an end to the at the Congress of Berlin, June to July 1878, for which he was rewarded by the Queen with the Order of the Garter (as was with Disraeli).

Afghanistan

Many in the Foreign Office panicked about Russian intentions in Afghanistan i.e. it was placing diplomats there with a view to infiltrating/overthrowing the Amir, with a view to eventually invading India. Salisbury was sceptical about this talk of Russia attacking. He believed that the expansion of the Russian empire, or ‘the Russian avalanche’ as he called it, was unstoppable but was moving east across central Asia.

‘If it keeps north of the Hindu Kush it may submerge one caste of Muslim robbers after another without disturbing our repose.’ (p.145)

The Afghan war was the fault of Lord Lytton, the viceroy of India. Lytton’s despatches had become steadily more hysterical and Salisbury predicted to a cabinet colleague that he expected him [Lytton] would no conduct operations ‘so as to achieve the most brilliant results – lose the greatest number of men – and spend the largest amount of money’ (p.221).

Sure enough Lytton disobeyed instructions to disengage and sent a British force to force the Amir to accept a British representative at his court, which was defeated at the Khyber Pass. This forced Salisbury’s hand because he believed Britain must be seen to be strong.

The Battle of Maiwand

The war included the Battle of Maiwand on 27 July 1880 when Afghan forces under Ayub Khan defeated an admittedly smaller British force consisting of two brigades of British and Indian troops under Brigadier-General George Burrows, some 969 of whom were killed.

The point of mentioning this is that when British forces were dispatched to south Afghanistan in 2006 their bases in Helmand Province turned out not to be very far from the site of the battle and they discovered that local Afghan leaders and fighters still remembered it as a great patriotic victory over the infidel invader. The moral being that we, the British, have forgotten or never even knew most of our imperial history whereas, for scores of nations which we fought and conquered, our violent interventions are very much part of their national story.

The Anglo-Zulu War

From Wikipedia:

Following the passing of the British North America Act of 1867 forming a federation in Canada [Salisbury’s friend and ally in Disraeli’s cabinet] Lord Carnarvon thought that a similar political effort, coupled with military campaigns, might succeed with the African Kingdoms, tribal areas and Boer republics in South Africa. In 1874, Sir Bartle Frere was sent to South Africa as British High Commissioner to effect such plans. Among the obstacles were the armed independent states of the South African Republic and the Kingdom of Zululand. Frere, on his own initiative, sent a provocative ultimatum on 11 December 1878 to the Zulu king Cetshwayo and upon its rejection sent Lord Chelmsford to invade Zululand. The war is notable for several particularly bloody battles, including an opening victory of the Zulu at the Battle of Isandlwana, followed by the defence of Rorke’s Drift by a small British force from attack by a large Zulu force. The British eventually won the war, ending Zulu dominance of the region.

Salisbury in several places rages against the way the men on the spot, politicians or viceroys or diplomats or sometimes buccaneering businessmen like Cecil Rhodes, were forever stirring up trouble and starting conflicts which the government back in London then had no option to follow through. It was true of both the Afghan and Zulu wars where the same ends might have been achieved through diplomacy, trade and deals.

Roberts tells how Salisbury couldn’t understand why the Queen was so keen to allow the son of the exiled French Emperor Napoleon III (who had sought refuge in Chislehurst in Kent) Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, to accompany British forces, but she insisted. He was promptly killed on 1 June 1879 by Zulus who stripped his corpse, all except for one blue sock bearing the initial N from which he was identified.

Egypt

Salisbury wanted to exercise ‘informal empire’ over Egypt not officially annex it. In theory Egypt was run by a Khedive appointed by the Ottoman Sultan. In practice, in return for propping up the Sultan and broadly supporting him against the Russians, Britain was allowed to interfere in Egypt. Apart from anything else Britain had huge sums invested in the Suez Canal and associated businesses. When the stroppy Khedive Ismail Pasha threw out British representatives, Salisbury had the British ambassador to Istanbul ask the Sultan to oust him in favour of his son, Tewfik Pasha, who would be more pliable. A few weeks later Salisbury wrote with typical dour cynicism to a colleague:

‘The only form of control we have is that which is called moral influence, which in practice is a combination of nonsense, objuration and worry.’ (p.229)

I had to look up ‘objuration’. It means ‘a firm binding by oath’. Salisbury’s cynicism is deliberately witty but it’s also bullshit, isn’t it? We also had a massive army (in India a truly huge army), the Royal Navy (which bombarded Alexandria and docked at Istanbul to threaten the Sultan with their guns), and various instruments of financial control through the City of London. A lot more tangible than ‘nonsense, objuration and worry.’

British troops used Egypt as a base to head south to defeat the forces of the Mahdi in what is now the Sudan. Despite all Salisbury and other British politicians’ insistence that the occupation of Egypt was purely temporary, it was, of course, strategic and long term, designed to secure the Suez Canal and the route to India (p.343). British troops didn’t leave Egypt until 1956, leaving a deep legacy of suspicion and resentment.

Tory defeat in 1880

The Tories were surprised at the scale of the landslide which turned them out in the 1880 election: Liberals 352, Tories 237, Irish Home Rule MPs 60 (p.238). Beaconsfield was ill, he had looked tired at the Conference of Berlin, had fluffed his lines and missed sessions due to chronic asthma (p.203).

Leader of the Opposition: 1881 to 1885

Salisbury took up some of his old hobbies including experimenting with electricity and collecting seaweed. Beaconsfield continued as Tory leader until his death in April 1881.

The Liberal Party had only been founded in 1859 as a coalition of anti-Tory forces. As the number of Radical Liberal MPs increased, it alienated the other wing of the party, the landed aristocratic Whig faction (p.244). In opposition, one of Salisbury’s cunning plans was to subtly egg on Gladstone’s radicalism, specially regarding Irish Home Rule and electoral reform, in order to inflame the Radicals’ expectations and rhetoric and so scare the landowning Whigs that they would come over to the Tories. There’s huge amounts of that kind of Machiavellian scheming in this book.

Electoral reform

The big issue at the end of Gladstone’s ministry was electoral reform. Eventually he passed two acts, the Representation of the People Act 1884 (known informally as the Third Reform Act) and the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885. Both were passed by the Liberal House of Commons but strongly resisted in the House of Lords led by Salisbury. This was for the simple reason that both acts tended to favour the Liberal, Whig and Radical interest at the expense of the aristocracy.

For the first time Britain was divided into 670 constituencies of roughly equal size, each returning just one Member of Parliament (previously many constituencies had returned two MPs, who tended to be one Liberal and one Tory, who didn’t even bother campaigning against each other. In other two-member constituencies the fractured Liberal Party had handed one to a Whig and one to a Radical. Salisbury cannily calculated that forcing them to choose one or the other would drive wedges between the two factions.

A lot more constituencies were created in cities, but Roberts shows that Salisbury, with characteristic thoroughness, had done intensive research into British psephology and correctly guessed that although some of these cities might turn Liberal or Radical, a lot of Britain’s big cities now had extensive suburbs and the inhabitants of these were just as scared of working class radicalism as the aristocracy (p.306). This was referred to ‘villa Toryism’ and came to be seen as a legacy of Disraeli.

A small symbol of this was the establishment in October 1882 of the periodical the National Review, designed to produce intelligent journalism for these middle-class Tories.

‘Caretaker’ prime minister: 1885 to 1886

Roberts chronicles the extraordinary manoeuvrings which surrounded Salisbury’s first spell as Prime Minister. In February the Liberals were defeated in an amendment to a bill and Gladstone immediately resigned. But the organisation required by the new Reform Act had not yet been put in place and wouldn’t be until the end of the year so, if he accepted power, Salisbury was faced with the unappetising prospect of being Prime Minister of a minority government for 6 months which was just long enough to make numerous mistakes and, at the next election, be unceremoniously chucked out. It’s fascinating to read the long maze of negotiations this led to, centrally getting Gladstone to agree to pass various nuts and bolts laws and acts which needed to go through. Gladstone had done the same thing to Disraeli in 1874; Salisbury had watched and learned.

There were two other problems. Salisbury wasn’t a shoe-in for Prime Minister. He sat in the House of Lords whereas the leader in the Commons throughout the period in opposition had been Sir Stafford Northcote, 1st Baronet [Eton]. Northcote expected the job but was widely seen to be too weak and lacking drive whereas Salisbury (as we’ve seen) enjoyed nothing more than making swingeing attacks on his enemies.

The second problem was Winston Churchill’s father, the radical and unreliable Lord Randolph Henry Spencer-Churchill (Eton). Randolph had set himself up with a cohort of followers on the Radical wing of the Conservative Party the leaders of which came to be referred to as ‘the Fourth Party’ (Churchill, Henry Drummond Wolff, John Gorst and Arthur Balfour). He promoted something called ‘Tory democracy’, that the Tories should accept the 1885 Reform Act, and the rise of the working class which lay behind it, but ensure the boundaries and details were drawn up to their advantage. A flashy update of Disraeli’s ‘One Nation Conservatism’. He created the National Union of the Conservative Party, created to ‘organise propaganda to attract working men’s votes, registration, choose candidates and conduct elections’, had many followers but refused to serve in Salisbury’s cabinet unless various demands were met.

Salisbury’s juggling of all these issues, trying to square various circles, makes for fascinating reading, insight into the real, smoke-filled rooms nature of actual party politics, more like a soap opera or school playground, with gangs and threats and changing alliances, than anything to do with principles, let alone serving the country.

Salisbury only finally accepted the job when Queen Victoria shed tears and pleaded with him. It was called a ‘caretaker’ government. He was 55. Lord Northcote was gutted but rewarded by being made Earl of Iddlesleigh and packed off to the Lords. Apparently, this is the origin of the expression, being ‘kicked upstairs’.

It is impossible to take the honours system seriously when you see titles like this being used with the utmost cynicism as rewards for mediocrity or being a big donor to party funds or simply to shut people up and get them out of the way. The people these made-up ‘titles’ get handed out to are generally lapdogs, the superannuated or inconvenient mediocrities who need to be shut up. That the givers or takers of these ‘honours’ then get on their hind legs and spout about ‘honour’ and ‘tradition’ and all the rest of it is risible, pathetic: see the way Boris Johnson simply rewarded key allies with peerages, damehoods and knighthoods. Dame Priti Patel. Or Liz Truss’s ‘honours’ list which even the Daily Telegraph described as ‘shameless’.

IRELAND

Salisbury was as solid as a rock against any form of home rule or national assembly for Ireland, because:

  • the 1800 Act of Union was a bulwark of property rights, law and order
  • it would be a slippery slope, the first step on an irresistible drive towards independence
  • as the first and nearest colony of Great Britain, giving Ireland any measure of home rule would immediately trigger calls for the same from every other colony in the empire, especially India (cf pages 574, 587)
  • it would mean abandoning the minority of the population of Ireland who were active supporters of the Union i.e. mostly in Ulster
  • on a moral level, it would be an ignoble surrender to the forces of violence (what was later called terrorism) i.e. the continual low-level agrarian protests and occasional murders all across Ireland
  • losing our prime colony would undermine Britain’s prestige in the world, make us look less powerful, and also
  • an independent Ireland led by people who hate us would become a serious security threat, even a starting point for invasion by enemy powers (as it had been for the French during the Revolutionary Wars)
  • a neutral or hostile Ireland would threaten Britain’s ability to import food in time of war (p.587)

Ireland quotes:

‘Are we to cut our country in two and, in the smaller portion, are we to abandon a minority of our own blood and religion to the power of their ancient enemies, in spite of their bitter protests against the debasing and ruinous servitude to which we propose to leave them?’ (p.586)

There was also rabid anti-Catholicism. Salisbury wasn’t just an Anglican, he was a fierce insister on the rights and perquisites of the Church of England in all its aspects. There was, therefore, a strong element of religious bigotry in his opposition to Home Rule for Ireland. It’s not just in the last few years that politicians have come up with superficial trivialising jingles: it was about this time that ‘Home Rule means Rome Rule’ began to be repeated by the lighter minded Conservatives and chanted at meetings and conferences (p.380).

But Roberts gives the game away, on the same page, about Ireland and the whole imperial ethos, by telling us that the very First Earl of Salisbury had been instrumental in the wholesale CONFISCATION of land in Armagh, Cavan, Derry, Donegal, Fermanagh and Tyrone between 1607 and 1609 and selling it in lots roughly the size of parishes to Scottish and City businessmen for settlement. He makes it crystal clear that the Protestant English stole the land from its rightful owners, then distributed it according to English law and from that point onwards, for the next 400 years, insisted it was a bulwark of English law when it was plain for any bystander to see that English law was, in that case, just a form of organised thieving, looting, imperial confiscation.

To then turn around and claim that this act of grand larceny, the organised theft of an entire nation’s patrimony, represented the epitome of ‘law and order’ and defending the theft amounted to ‘the most sacred obligations of honour’ (p.276):

Hartington looked upon the Irish Question primarily as one of defending property and landowning rights. (p.367)

is either to lie to yourself or be guilty of ridiculous hypocrisy. Ask any Irish historian what they think of English ‘honour’ and ‘legality’.

Roberts’ long account of the lengthy manoeuvrings about Home Rule is interrupted for a brief mention of how the British ‘formally annexed’ Upper Burma. The king of Burma, King Theebaw, was negotiating a convention with France but Salisbury was having none of that – Burma had little or no value in itself but might be a useful conduit to western China, and the French certainly weren’t going to have it! — so he sent a force of 9,000 troops who smashed the Burmese army, overthrew the king and put him in prison, installing a friendly Buddhist in power.

Invading foreign countries, overthrowing their traditional rulers, making them subservient to British rule. Only a special kind of mental perversion could talk about this in the same breath as ‘preserving law and order’ and ‘the inviolable rights of property’ and ‘the most sacred obligations of honour’, let alone think that ‘Britain’s greatest contribution to civilisation and mankind [was her] empire’ (p.370).

The violent overthrows, the coups, the imposition of rule by military force, the suppression of opposition voices, were all carried out to defend British strategic and business interests. The fact that they were dressed up in fancy rhetoric was what prompted continental observers like the French or Germans to routinely accuse the British of stunning hypocrisy.

Anti-democracy

It’s worth exploring the thinking behind Salisbury’s opposition to expanding the franchise. Basically he thought liberty was based on a) property and b) tradition and c) the law which upheld them. Only people with property have an interested in the existing system. Give the vote to people who have no property and their opinions will be wild and unpredictable, harmful to tradition, security, property etc. It would be mob rule, unjust, arbitrary and destructive. This is why he often referred to ‘the tyranny of numbers’. Just because a majority of the voters vote for something doesn’t make it right.

If you start from the position that property is the bedrock of liberty, then it follows that all attacks on property are, to the same extent, attacks on liberty. Thus Salisbury put a wide variety of reforms, such as extending the franchise or a graduated death duties, under the heading Attacks on Property which, in Salisbury’s mind, was synonymous with Attacks on Liberty.

It’s a coherent and logical position, but one which doesn’t take account of poverty. Its twinning of liberty with property, the more the better, gives no representation, voice or opinion to the large number of people who have little or no property: should they have no say in the running of the country? No, according to Tories of Salisbury’s stripe.

This was because he had nightmares that enfranchising the working classes and the poor would encourage in them, or demagogues, a wish to overthrow the aristocracy and take the money and property of everyone better off than themselves. He had a lifelong fascination with, and horror of, the French Revolution, not only read books on the subject but amassed a collection of pamphlets and ephemera, often some up from Paris bookshops and second-hand stalls (p.541). The conclusion he drew from it was that it was the fault of weak-willed liberals who set off with the best of intentions but broke down the constitutional checks and restraints and so opened the door to Terror and tyranny. That’s how he viewed the Liberals of his day: as well-intentioned but weak-willed types who, by attacking ‘privilege’ and ‘property’, threatened to sweep away restraint and open the door to anarchy.

Ironically, however, the actual result of electoral reform was virtually the opposite: as a result of the 1884 Reform Act, during the 1890s Salisbury began to worry that the effect of widening the franchise would not be revolution but the opposite, the triumph of super-patriotic Jingoism which, with his incurable pessimism, he regarded as almost as bad.

Salisbury sayings

‘The commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcasses of dead policies.’ (p.173)

When a member of his own party objected to the way bits of other countries were traded like counters at the Berlin Conference, Salisbury robustly replied:

that if our ancestors had cared for the rights of other people, the British Empire would not have been made.’ (p.185)

Comedy

At the Conference of Berlin in the summer of 1878 it was very hot. At the Kaiser’s residence in Potsdam there were mosquitoes, but at Berlin there were ‘minor powers. I don’t know which is worse.’ (p.201).

Of the army hero and adventurer Colonel Frederick Burnaby, who had undertaken a 1,000 mile midwinter expedition across Central Asia, he wrote: ‘I cannot see any reason for interfering with the natural right of a Briton to get his throat cut when and where he likes,’ (p.218). (Burnaby was subsequently killed in hand-to-hand fighting against followers of the Mahdi at the Battle of Abu Klea, 16 January 1885.)

When, at the time of the Congress of Berlin, an Admiral Hornby demanded that preparations for war with Russia be stepped up, Salisbury wrote to a cabinet colleague that:

‘If Hornby is a cool-headed, fearless, sagacious man, he ought to bring an action for libel against his epistolary style.’ (p.192)

At a tricky point of negotiations with Sultan Abdul Hamid II, Salisbury wrote to the British Ambassador at the Sublime Porte, Sir Austen Henry Layard, that they might get their way in small matters with the Sultan but at the risk of inflaming his Muslim people and risking revolution, which was ‘rather like burning down a house to procure roast pork.’ (p.237).

‘To those who have found breakfast with difficulty and do not know where to find dinner, intricate questions of politics are a matter of comparatively secondary interest.’ (p.250)

In 1889 the Shah of Persia, Nasr-el-Din, visited England for a month. When he was taken to see a model modern prison, he asked to see a gallows in action. On being told that no-one was due to be hanged that day he offered one of his own entourage (p.543).

Of the Daily Mail Salisbury quipped that Alfred Harmsworth had:

‘invented a paper for those who could read but not think’ (p.668)

He liked to say that bishops came in two mutually exclusive categories: those who were fit to be made bishops but unwilling, and those who were willing but unfit. A lot of bishops died and needed to be replaced during his premiership, he appointed 38 new bishops, more than any other Prime Minister before or since. He joked: ‘They die to spite me’ (p.676).

Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1895 to 1902 was so appalled by the rapidly escalating cost of the (second) Boer War that he repeatedly threatened to resign from the cabinet. So many times in fact, that Salisbury joked that he had a special drawer in his desk just for Hicks Beach’s resignation letters (p.744).

Balfour said of his uncle that he certainly believed that all men are equal, ‘by which he means, equally incompetent’ (p.746).

When the Liberal politician John Wodehouse, 1st Earl of Kimberley, attacked the dire management of the Boer War, Salisbury replied that:

‘A more gloomy collection of lugubrious vaticinations I never heard.’ (p.755)

In 1896 Victoria asked Salisbury to promote Lord Waldegrave from being a Lord in Waiting to the Yeoman of the Guard, because as a Lord he was constantly in her presence and she found him simply too ugly to look at (p.794).

Roberts says that Salisbury’s wit was the equal of Disraeli’s but different in kind, relying on ‘high irony rather than mere paradox’ (p.849). Discuss.

Roberts the fanboy

Roberts loves his hero:

Protecting the Royal Family from embarrassment, whether it be political in Berlin, financial over the Royal Grants, sexual over disappointed mistresses, or even highly tangential, as over the Cleveland Street Scandal, Salisbury simply saw as part of the duties of the premiership, and he carried them out impeccably. (p.561)

This is not the tone of an objective historian but of an impassioned fan. Robert devotes pages 336 to 338 to citing witnesses to Salisbury’s sense of fun, his dry humour and cynical wit:

Just as he could not write a boring sentence, so Salisbury was also incapable of uttering a commonplace or canting remark. Lord Rosebery [Eton] once wrote that reading old political speeches was as dull as drinking decanted champagne. Salisbury’s extra brut speeches are the exception, and of a vintage that is still effervescent. (p.208)

Roberts himself often mimics or echoes Salisbury’s drollness:

Sultans of Turkey lived on the grand scale, some compensation for their occasional short life expectancy. (p.161) [E.g. Midhat Pasha was dismissed as Grand Vizier during the Russo-Turkish War, banished to Baghdad and eventually strangled.]

They both have that lofty Tory irony, that droll detachment and amused good humour, which makes the book so readable.

Conclusion to part one

This is a magnificent biography, huge, compendious but written with a tremendous lightness of touch and good humour throughout, echoing the ethos of its subject who portrayed himself as a gruff old Tory but, as his letters and speeches reveal, was a lifelong humorist. It is an absolute goldmine of insights into every aspect of British domestic and foreign policy for the 35 years when Britain reached the peak of its economic and imperial might, 1867 to 1902. It is massively enjoyable on every level.

But none of this should blind us to the fact that Salisbury was the enemy. He was the rooted opposition to everything progressive that was attempted through the period. He stood for a level of privilege and entitlement that almost no one nowadays can conceive, an almost incomprehensibly dedication to the life-or-death importance of hierarchy, the aristocracy, the Church of England. Like all conservatives and authoritarians he thought that if any of this was tampered with it would open the floodgates to anarchy. Thus he resisted every move to give Ireland more home rule because he saw it as threatening a wider collapse:

He saw the [Home Rule] campaign in Ireland as merely the precursor for a general class struggle over the rights of property. (p.258)

Of course it didn’t. Trying to hang onto this world of privilege in the face of changing technologies, social norms and culture, in the increasingly embittered clinging onto India, in the embittered clinging on to Ulster, in the embittered fight against electoral reform (all leading to the climactic struggle between Tories and Liberals in 1911), it was these rearguard positions which nearly led to anarchy.

Above all, he held positions of power during the height of empire and openly admitted it was based on threat and intimidation. In Roberts’s view: ‘Salisbury believed implicitly in the politics of prestige and revenge’ (p.247).

The single biggest conundrum is how he managed to reconcile the windy rhetoric of his speeches about ‘the highest interests of Empire’ and ‘the most sacred obligations of honour’ (p.276) (cf Ireland p.351) with the acid cynicism of his private papers and correspondence, which bluntly state that we had to hang onto India and Ireland by whatever means possible because they’re what made Britain ‘great’.

You know the cliché ‘Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel’? Well, every time you read a Victorian politician talking about ‘honour’ you can be sure it’s high-sounding cover for either he and his class clinging onto their wealth and privileges or, in an international context, for the British clinging on to countries they acquired by force, with no right or law or ‘honour’ involved in either.

Roberts’ central argument is that Salisbury kept the peace between jostling European Powers for a generation by his foresight and intelligence and diplomacy. This is all true and yet we know that the sweeping changes across all aspects of society which he held back for so long were inevitably going to come about, and it could be argued that, by delaying them for so long, Salisbury made the process of managing them when they became unavoidable (votes for women, rights for workers, Irish independence) much more violent and painful than they need have been if they had been addressed more sympathetically and much earlier.


Credit

Salisbury: Victorian Titan by Andrew Roberts was published in hardback by Weidenfeld and Nicholson in 1999. References are to the 2000 Phoenix paperback edition.

Related links

The Age of Empire: 1875 to 1914 by Eric Hobsbawm (1987)

Summary

This is a very mixed bag of a book. The first quarter or so is a thrilling global overview of the main trends and developments in industrial capitalism during the period 1875 to 1914, containing a vast array of fascinating and often thrilling facts and figures. But then it mutates into a series of long, turgid, repetitive, portentous, banal and ultimately uninformative chapters about social change, the arts, sciences, social sciences and so on, which are dreadful.

And underlying it all is Hobsbawm’s unconcealed contempt for the nineteenth century ‘bourgeoisie’ and their ‘bourgeois society’, terms he uses so freely and with so little precision that they eventually degenerate into just being terms of abuse.

And in his goal of insulting the 19th century ‘bourgeoisie’ as much as possible, Hobsbawm glosses over a huge range of crucial differences – between nations and regions, between political and cultural and religious traditions, between parties and politicians, between classes and even periods, yoking a fact from 1880 to one from 1900, cherry-picking from a vast range of information in order to make his sweeping Marxist generalisations and support the tendentious argument that ‘bourgeois society’ was fated to collapse because of its numerous ‘contradictions’.

But when you really look hard at the ‘contradictions’ he’s talking about they become a lot less persuasive than he wants them to be, and his insistence that ‘bourgeois society’ was doomed to collapse in a welter of war and revolution comes to seem like the partisan, biased reporting of a man who is selective in his facts and slippery in his interpretations.

Eventually you feel like you are drowning in a sea of spiteful and tendentious generalisations. I would recommend literally any other book on the period as a better guide, for example:

It is symptomatic of Hobsbawm’s ignoring specificity, detail and precision in preference for sweeping generalisations about his hated ‘bourgeois society’, that in this book supposedly ‘about’ imperialism, he mentions the leading imperialist politician in the world’s leading imperialist nation, Joseph Chamberlain, precisely once, and the leading British cultural propagandist of imperialism, Rudyard Kipling, also only once. These feel like glaring omissions.

When I read this book as a student I was thrilled by its huge perspectives and confident generalisations and breezily Marxist approach. It was only decades later, when I read detailed books about the scramble for Africa, or late-imperial China, or really engaged with Kipling’s works, that I realised how little I actually understood about this period and how much I had been seriously misled by Hobsbawm’s fine-sounding but, in the end, inadequate, superficial and tendentiously misleading account.

Introduction

The Age of Empire is the third and final volume in Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm’s trilogy of books covering what he termed ‘the long nineteenth century’, from the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1798 to the start of the Great War in 1914. This third instalment covers the final 40 years, from 1875 to 1914.

In the previous book, The Age of Capital, Hobsbawm had amply demonstrated that he regards the third quarter of the nineteenth century as marking the triumph of the liberal ‘bourgeoisie’, of the ‘capitalist’ middle classes, in industry and technology and finance and politics and the arts.

Having seen off the attempt to overthrow existing regimes across continental Europe in the failed revolutions of 1848, the continent’s ruling classes experienced from 1850 onwards, a period of spectacular economic, technological, business and trade growth which continued on into the 1860s. This boom period was overseen by laissez-faire liberal governments in most countries and reflected in the widespread, optimistic belief that the steady stream of scientific, technological and industrial innovations would produce an endless progress upwards towards peace and prosperity. It was 25 years of what Hobsbawm insists on calling ‘liberal bourgeois triumph’.

It led to the confident conquest of the globe by the capitalist economy, carried by its characteristic class, the bourgeoisie, and under the banner of its characteristic intellectual expression, the ideology of liberalism. (p.9)

At the end of The Age of Capital he gave a short preview of what was coming up in the next era, and it is a major change in tone and subject. Whereas the pace of scientific and technological innovation accelerated, economically, politically and culturally the period which began around 1875 felt like a very different period, witnessing the collapse of much of the mid-century optimism.

Main features of the period

The Long Depression

The period witnessed a long depression, particularly in agriculture, which lasted from 1873 to 1896. A glut of agricultural produce led to a collapse in prices, rural poverty and loss of revenue for the landowning aristocracies. Cheaper food made life better for all those who lived in cities, so the overall impact was very mixed. Commentators at the time didn’t understand what had led to an apparent stalling in expansion and profits and historians have debated its precise causes ever since.

Protectionism

The Long Depression was the main trigger for many western governments to move rapidly from the mid-century free trade model associated with Liberalism towards protectionism, the imposition of protective tariffs on imports etc, especially by America.

New industries

The textile base of the first industrial revolution continued to be important (witness Britain’s huge exports of cotton to its captive markets in India) but the main industrial economies entered a new era driven by new sources of power (electricity and oil, turbines and the internal combustion engine), exploiting new, science-based materials (steel [which became a general index for industrialisation and modernisation, p.35], alloys, non-ferrous metals), accompanied by numerous discoveries in organic chemistry (for example, new dyes and ways of colouring which affected everything from army uniforms to high art).

Monopoly-capitalism

The depression and the consumer explosion led to small and medium-sized companies being replaced by large industrial corporations, cartels, trusts, monopolies (p.44).

New managerial class

The age of small factories run by their founders and family was eclipsed by the creation of huge industrial complexes themselves gathered into regions linked by communications and transport. Hobsbawm mentions the vast industrial conurbation taking shape in the Ruhr region of Germany or the growth of the steel industry around Pittsburgh in America. The point is that these operations became far too large for one man and his son to run; they required managers experienced at managing industrial operations at scale, and so this gave rise to a new class of high level managers and executives. And to the beginnings of management ‘theory’, epitomised by the work of Frederick Winslow Taylor (born 1865 in Pennsylvania) which introduced concepts like, to quote Wikipedia:

analysis; synthesis; logic; rationality; empiricism; work ethic; efficiency and elimination of waste; standardization of best practices; disdain for tradition preserved merely for its own sake or to protect the social status of particular workers with particular skill sets; the transformation of craft production into mass production; and knowledge transfer between workers and from workers into tools, processes, and documentation.

Population growth

Europe’s population rose from 290 million in 1870 to 435 million in 1910, America’s from 38.5 million to 92 million. (All told, America’s population multiplied over five times from 30 million in 1800 to 160 million by 1900.)

Consumer capitalism

This huge population explosion led to a rapid expansion of domestic consumer markets (p.53). There was still much widespread poverty in the cities, but there was also an ever-growing middle and lower-middle-class keen to assert its status through its possessions. This led to an fast-expanding market for cheap products, often produced by the new techniques of mass production, epitomised by the radical industrial organising of Henry Ford who launched his Model T automobile in 1907.

Department stores and chain stores

Another symbol of this explosion of consumer culture was the arrival of the department store and the chain store in the UK (p.29). For example, Thomas Lipton opened his first small grocery shop in Glasgow in 1871 and by 1899 had over 500 branches, selling the characteristic late-Victorian product, tea, imported from Ceylon (p.53; British tea consumption p.64).

Or take Whiteleys, which began as a fancy goods shop opened in 1863 at 31 Westbourne Grove by William Whiteley, employing two girls to serve and a boy to run errands. By 1867 it had expanded to a row of shops containing 17 separate departments. Whiteley continued to diversify into food and estate agency, building and decorating and by 1890 employed over 6,000 staff. Whiteleys awed contemporaries by its scale and regimentation: most of the staff lived in company-owned male and female dormitories, having to obey 176 rules and working 7 am to 11 pm, six days a week.

Mass advertising

The arrival of a mass consumer market for many goods and services led to an explosion in the new sector of advertising. Many writers and diarists of the time lament the explosion of ads in newspapers, magazines and, most egregious of all, on the new billboards and hoardings which started going up around cities.

The poster

Hoardings required posters. The modern poster was brought to a first pitch of perfection during what critics consider ‘the golden age of the poster’ in the 1890s (p.223) (something I learned a lot about at the current exhibition of the poster art of John Hassell at the Heath Robinson Museum in Pinner).

Hire purchase and modern finance

New ways for the financially squeezed lower middle classes to pay for all this were invented, notably hire-purchase or instalment payments (p.49).

New popular technologies

Entirely new technologies were invented during the 1880s and 1890s, the most notable being the internal combustion engine and the car, the bicycle, cinema, telephone, wireless and light bulb (pages 19 and 28 and 53).

Competition for resources

New discoveries in industrial chemistry and processes required more recherché raw materials – oil, rubber, rare metals such as manganese, tin and nickel (p.63). The booming consumer market also developed a taste for more exotic foodstuffs, specifically fruits, bananas, cocoa. (Apparently it was only during the 1880s that the banana became widely available and popular in the West.) Where was all this stuff found? In the non-European world.

Imperialism

Growing need for all these resources and crops led to increasing competition to seize territories which contained them. Hence the 1880s and 1890s are generally seen as the high point of Western imperialism, leading up to the so-called Scramble for Africa in the 1880s.

(Interestingly, Hobsbawm notes that the word ‘imperialism’, used in its modern sense, occurs nowhere in Karl Marx’s writings, and only became widely used in the 1890s, many commentators remarking [and complaining] about its sudden ubiquity, p.60.)

Globalisation

During the 1860s and 70s the world became for the first time fully ‘globalised’, via the power of trade and commerce, but also the physical ties of the Railway and the Telegraph (p.13).

The major fact about the nineteenth century is the creation of a single global economy, progressively reaching into the most remote corners of the world, an increasingly dense web of economic transactions, communications and movements of goods, money and people linking the developed countries with each other and with the undeveloped world. (p.62)

During the 1880s and 1890s this process was intensified due to the growth of direct competition between the powers for colonies and their raw materials. Until the 1870s Britain ruled the waves. During this decade international competition for territories to exploit for their raw resources and markets became more intense (p.51). Imperialism.

A world divided

The final mapping of the world, its naming and definitions, led inevitably to the division of the world into ‘developed’ and ‘undeveloped’ parts, into ‘the advanced and the backward’.

For contemporaries, the industrialised West had a duty to bring the benefits of civilisation and Christianity to the poor benighted peoples who lived in all the ‘undeveloped’ regions. Hobsbawm, with the benefit of hindsight, says that the representatives of the developed part almost always came as ‘conquerors’ to the undeveloped part whose populations thus became, in Hobsbawm’s phrase, ‘victims’ of international capitalism.

On this Marxist reading, the imperial conquerors always distorted local markets to suit themselves, reducing many populations to plantation labour reorganised to produce the raw materials the West required, and eagerly helped by the tiny minorities in each undeveloped country which were able to exploit the process and rise to the top as, generally, repressive local rulers (pages 31, 56, 59).

In the second half of the twentieth century, many nations which had finally thrown off the shackles of colonialism found themselves still ruled by the descendants of these collaborationist elites, who modelled themselves on their former western rulers and still ran their countries for the benefit of themselves and their foreign sponsors. Further, truly nationalist revolutions were required, of which the most significant, in my lifetime, was probably the overthrow of the American-backed Shah of Iran by Islamic revolutionaries in 1978.

New working class militancy

Working class militancy went into abeyance in the decades 1850 to 1875, politically defeated in 1848 and then made irrelevant by a general raising of living standards in the mid-century boom years, much to Marx and Engels’ disappointment.

But in the 1880s it came back with a vengeance. Across the developed world a new generation of educated workers led a resurgence in working class politics, fomented industrial unrest, and a significant increase in strikes. There was much optimistic theorising about the potential of a complete or ‘general’ strike to bring the entire system to a halt, preliminary to ushering in the joyful socialist paradise.

New socialist political parties, some established in the 1860s or 1870s, now found themselves accumulating mass membership and becoming real powers in the land, most notably the left-wing German Social Democratic Party, which was the biggest party in the Reichstag by 1912 (chapter 5 ‘Workers of the World’).

Incorporation of working class demands and parties into politics

The capitalist class and ‘its’ governments found themselves forced to accede to working class demands, intervening in industries to regulate pay and conditions, and to sketch out welfare state policies such as pensions and unemployment benefit.

Again, Germany led the way, with its Chancellor, Bismarck, implementing a surprisingly liberal series of laws designed to support workers, including a Health Insurance Bill (1883), an Accident Insurance Bill (1884), an Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill (1889) – although, as everyone knew, he did this chiefly to steal the thunder from the German socialist parties.

Whatever the motives, the increasing intervention by governments across Europe into the working hours, unemployment and pension arrangements of their working classes were all a world away from the laissez-faire policies of the 1850s and 60s. Classical liberalism thought the forces of the market should be left entirely to themselves and would ineluctably resolve all social problems. By the 1880s it was clear to everyone that this was not the case and had instead produced widespread immiseration and poverty which states needed to address, if only to ensure social stability, and to neutralise the growing threat from workers’ parties.

Populism and blood and soil nationalism

But the rise of newly class-conscious workers’ parties, often with explicit agendas to overthrow the existing ‘bourgeois’ arrangements of society, and often with an internationalist worldview, triggered an equal and opposite reaction: the birth of demagogic, anti-liberal and anti-socialist, populist parties.

These harnessed the tremendous late-century spread of a new kind of aggressive nationalism which emphasised blood and soil and national language and defined itself by excluding ‘outsiders. (Chapter 6 ‘Waving Flags: Nations and Nationalism’).

Some of these were harmless enough, like Cymru Fydd, founded in Wales in 1886. Some would lead to armed resistance, like the Basque National Party founded 1886. Some became embroiled in wider liberation struggles, such as the Irish Gaelic League founded 1893. When Theodor Herzl founded Zionism with a series of articles about a Jewish homeland in 1896 he can little have dreamed what a seismic affect his movement would have in the second half of the twentieth century.

But the point is that, from the time of the French Revolution through to the 1848 revolutions, nationalism had been associated with the political left, from La Patrie of the Jacobins through the ‘springtime of the peoples’ of the 1848 revolutionaries.

Somehow, during the 1870s and 80s, a new type of patriotism, more nationalistic and more aggressive to outsiders and entirely associated with the political Right, spread all across Europe.

Its most baleful legacy was the crystallisation of centuries-old European antisemitism into a new and more vicious form. Hobsbawm makes the interesting point that the Dreyfus Affair, 1894 to 1906, shocked liberals across Europe precisely because the way it split France down the middle revealed the ongoing presence of a stupid prejudice which bien-pensant liberals thought had been consigned to the Middle Ages, eclipsed during the Enlightenment, long buried.

Instead, here it was, back with a vengeance. Herzl wrote his Zionist articles partly in response to the Dreyfus Affair and to the advent of new right-wing parties such as Action Francaise, set up in 1898 in response to the issues of identity and nationhood thrown up by the affair. (In a way, maybe the Dreyfus Affair was comparable to the election of Donald Trump, which dismayed liberals right around the world by revealing the racist, know-nothing bigotry at the heart of what many people fondly and naively like to think of as a ‘progressive’ nation.)

But it wasn’t just the Jews who were affected. All sorts of minorities in countries and regions all across Europe found themselves victimised, their languages and dialects and cultural traditions under pressure or banned by (often newly founded) states keen to create their own versions of this new, late-century, blood and soil nationalism.

The National Question

In fact this late-nineteenth century, super-charged nationalism was such a powerful force that socialist parties all across Europe had to deal with the uncomfortable fact that it caught the imagination of many more members of the working classes than the socialism which the left-wing parties thought ought to be appealing to them.

Hobsbawm’s heroes Lenin and ‘the young Stalin’ (Stalin – yes, definitely a man to admire and emulate, Eric) were much concerned with the issue. In fact Stalin was asked by Lenin in 1913 to write a pamphlet clarifying the Bolsheviks’ position on the subject, Marxism and the National Question. Lenin’s concern reflected the fact that all across Europe the effort to unify the working class into a revolutionary whole was jeopardised by the way the masses were much more easily rallied in the name of nationalistic ambitions than the comprehensive and radical communist overthrow of society which the socialists dreamed of.

In the few years before Stalin wrote, the Social Democratic Party of Austria had disintegrated into autonomous German, Czech, Polish, Ruthenian, Italian and Slovene groupings, exemplifying the way what ought to be working class, socialist solidarity was increasingly undermined by the new nationalism.

Racism

Related to all these topics was widespread racism or, as Hobsbawm puts it:

  • Racism, whose central role in the nineteenth century cannot be overemphasised. (p.252)

This is the kind of sweeping generalisation which is both useful but questionable, at the same time. Presumably Hobsbawm means that racism was one of the dominant ideologies of the period, but where, exactly? In China? Paraguay? Samoa?

Obviously he means that racist beliefs grew increasingly dominant through all strands of ‘bourgeois’ Western ideology as the century progressed, but even this milder formulation is questionable. In Britain the Liberals consistently opposed imperialism. Many Christian denominations in all nations very powerfully opposed racism. For example, it was the incredibly dedicated work of the Quakers which underpinned Britain’s abolition of the slave trade in 1807.The missionaries who played such a vital role in funding expeditions into Africa did so to abolish the slave trade there and because they thought Africans were children of God, like us.

A key point of the Dreyfus Affair was not that it was a storming victory for antisemites but the reverse: it proved that a very large part of the French political and commenting classes, as well as the wider population, supported Dreyfus and condemned antisemitism.

It is one thing to make sweeping generalisations about the racism which underpinned and long outlasted the slave system in the American South, which Hobsbawm doesn’t hesitate to do. But surely, in the name of accuracy and real historical understanding, you have to point out the equal and opposite force of anti-racism among the well organised, well-funded and widely popular anti-slavery organisations, newspapers and politicians in the North.

I can see what Hobsbawm’s driving at: as the nineteenth century progressed two types of racism emerged ever more powerfully:

1. In Europe, accompanying the growth of late-century nationalism went an increasingly bitter and toxic animosity against, and contempt for, people identified as ‘outsiders’ to the key tenets nationalists included in their ideology (that members of the nation must speak the same language, practice the same religion, look the same etc), most obviously the Jews, but plenty of other ‘minorities’, especially in central and eastern Europe, suffered miserably. And the Armenians in Turkey, right at the end of Hobsbawm’s period.

2. In European colonies, the belief in the intrinsic racial superiority of white Europeans became increasingly widespread and was bolstered in the later period by the spread of various bastardised forms of Darwinism. (I’ve read in numerous accounts that the Indian Revolt of 1857 marked a watershed in British attitudes, with the new men put in charge maintaining a greater distance from their subjects than previously and how, over time, they came to rationalise this into an ideology of racial superiority.)

I don’t for a minute deny any of this. I’m just pointing out that Hobsbawm’s formulation is long on rousing rhetoric and short on any of the specifics about how racist ideology arose, was defined and played out in actual policies of particular western nations, in specific times and places – the kind of details which would be useful, which would aid our understanding.

And I couldn’t help reflecting that if he thinks racism was central to the 19th century, then what about the twentieth century? Surely the twentieth century eclipses the nineteenth on the scale of its racist ideologies and the terrible massacres it prompted, from the Armenian genocide, the Jewish Holocaust, the Nazi Ostplan to wipe out all the Slavs in Europe, the Japanese massacres in China, the anti-black racism which dominated much of American life, the Rwandan genocide, and so on.

Hobsbawm confidently writes about ‘the universal racism of the bourgeois world’ (p.289) but the claim, although containing lots of truth a) like lots of his other sweeping generalisations, tends to break down on closer investigation and b) elides the way that there were a lot of other things going on as well, just as there were in the twentieth century.

The New Woman

In 1894 Irish writer Sarah Grand used the term ‘new woman’ in an influential article, to refer to independent women seeking radical change and, in response, the English writer Ouida (Maria Louisa Rame) used the term as the title of a follow-up article (Wikipedia).

Hobsbawm devotes a chapter to the rise of women during the period 1875 to 1914. He makes a number of points:

Feminism

The number of feminists and suffragettes was always tiny, not least because they stood for issues which only interested middle-class women, then as now. The majority of British women were poor to very poor indeed, and most simply wanted better working and living conditions and pay. It was mostly upper-middle-class women who wanted the right to vote and access to the professions and universities like their fathers and brothers.

The more visible aspects of women’s emancipation were still largely confined to women of the middle class… In countries like Britain, where suffragism became a significant phenomenon, it measured the public strength of organised feminism, but in doing so it also revealed its major limitation, an appeal primarily confined to the middle class. (p.201)

Upper class feminism

It is indicative of the essentially upper-class nature of suffragism and feminism that the first woman to be elected to the UK House of Commons was Constance Georgine Gore-Booth, daughter of Sir Henry Gore-Booth, 5th Baronet, and Georgina, Lady Gore-Booth.

Nancy Astor

In fact, as an Irish Republican, Constance refused to attend Westminster, with the result that the first woman MP to actually sit in the House of Commons, was the American millionairess, Nancy Astor, who took her seat after winning a by-election for the Conservative Party in 1919. Formally titled Viscountess Astor, she lived with her American husband, Waldorf Astor, in a grand London house, No. 4 St. James’s Square, or spent time at the vast Cliveden House in Buckinghamshire which Waldorf’s father bought the couple as a wedding present. Hardly the stuff of social revolutions, is it? The exact opposite, in fact. Reinforcing wealth and privilege.

Rentier feminism

In the same way, a number of the most eminent women of the day lived off inherited money and allowances. They were rentiers, trustafarians aka parasites. When Virginia Woolf wrote that a woman writer needed ‘a room of her own’ what she actually meant was an income of about £500 a year, ideally provided by ‘the family’ i.e. Daddy. The long-running partnership of the founders of the left-wing Fabian Society, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, was based on the £1,000 a year settled on her by her father at her marriage i.e. derived from the labour of others, mostly working class men (p.185).

New secretarial jobs for women

Alongside the rise of a new managerial class, mentioned above, the 1880s and 1890s saw the rise of new secretarial and administrative roles, what Hobsbawm neatly calls ‘a tribute to the typewriter’ (p.201). In 1881 central and local government in Britain employed 7,000 women; by 1911 that number was 76,000. Many women went into these kinds of secretarial jobs, and also filled the jobs created by the spread of the new department and chain stores. So these years saw a broad social change as many middle-class and lower middle-class single women and wives were able to secure reasonable white collar jobs in ever-increasing numbers (p.200).

Women and education

Education began to be offered to the masses across Europe during the 1870s and 80s, with Britain’s patchy 1870 Education Act followed by an act making junior school education compulsory in 1890. Obviously this created a huge new demand for schoolteachers and this, also, was to become a profession which women dominated, a situation which continues to this day. (In the UK in 2019, 98% of all early years teachers are women, 86% of nursery and primary teachers are women, 65% of secondary teachers are women. Overall, 75.8% of all grades of school teacher in the UK are female).

Secretarial and admin, shop staff, and schoolteachers – the pattern of women dominating in these areas was set in the 1880s and 1890s and continues to this day (p.201).

Women and religion

Hobsbawm makes one last point about women during this period which is that many, many more women were actively involved in the Christian church than in feminist or left-wing politics: women were nuns, officiants in churches, and supporters of Christian parties.

Statistically the women who opted for the defence of their sex through piety enormously outnumbered those who opted for liberation. (p.210)

I was surprised to learn that many women in France were actively against the vote being given to women, because they already had a great deal of ‘soft’ social and cultural power under the existing system, and actively didn’t want to get drawn into the worlds of squabbling men, politics and the professions.

Even within the bourgeois liberal society, middle class and petty-bourgeois French women, far from foolish and not often given to gentle passivity, did not bother to support the cause of women’s suffrage in large numbers. (p.209)

Feminism, then as now, claimed to speak for all women, a claim which is very misleading. Many women were not feminists, and many women were actively anti-feminist in the sense that they devoutly believed in Christian, and specifically Catholic, values, which allotted women clear duties and responsibilities as wives and mothers in the home, but also gave them cultural capital, privileges and social power.

These anti-feminists were far from stupid. They realised that a shift to more secular or socialist models would actually deprive them of much of this soft power. Or they just opposed secular, socialist values. Just as more than 50% of white American women voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and did so again in 2020.

Sport

Hobsbawm mentions sport throughout the book. I knew that a lot of sports were given formal rules and their governing bodies founded during this era – the Football League founded in 1888, Rugby Football Union founded 1871, Lawn Tennis Association founded 1888. I knew that tennis and golf in particular quickly became associated with the comfortably off middle classes, as they still are to this day.

But I hadn’t realised that these sports were so very liberating for women. Hobsbawm includes posters of women playing golf and tennis and explains that clubs for these sports became acceptable meeting places for young women whose families could be confident they would be meeting ‘the right sort’ of middle class ‘people like them’. As to this day. The spread of these middle class sports significantly opened up the number of spaces where women had freedom and autonomy.

The bicycle

Another new device which was an important vehicle for women’s freedom was the bicycle, which spread very quickly after its initial development in the 1880s, creating bicycle clubs and competitions and magazines and shops across the industrialised world, particularly liberating for many middle class women whom it allowed to travel independently for the first time.

Victorian Women's Cyclewear: The Ingenious Fight Against Conventions - We Love Cycling magazine

The arts and sciences

I haven’t summarised Hobsbawm’s lengthy sections about the arts and literature because, as a literature graduate, I found them boring and obvious and clichéd (Wagner was a great composer but a bad man; the impressionists revolutionised art by painting out of doors etc).

Ditto the chapters about the hard and social sciences, which I found long-winded, boring and dated. In both Age of Capital and this volume, the first hundred pages describing the main technological and industrial developments of the period are by far the most interesting and exciting bits, and the texts go steadily downhill after that.


Credit

The Age of Empire: 1875 to 1914 by Eric Hobsbawm was published in 1975 by Weidenfeld and Nicholson. All references are to the 1985 Abacus paperback edition.

Hobsbawm reviews

Related reviews about imperialism

Reviews about Marx and communism

Karl Marx

Communism in Russia

Communism in China

Communism in Vietnam

Communism in Germany

Communism in Poland

  • Warsaw 1920 by Adam Zamoyski (2008) How the Polish army stopped the Red Army’s advance into Poland in 1920 preventing them pushing on to support revolution in Germany.
  • The Captive Mind by Czesław Miłosz (1953) A devastating indictment of the initial appeal and then appalling consequences of communism in Poland: ‘Mass purges in which so many good communists died, the lowering of the living standard of the citizens, the reduction of artists and scholars to the status of yes-men, the extermination of entire national groups…’

Communism in Czechoslovakia

Communism in France

Communism in Spain

  • The Battle for Spain by Antony Beevor (2006) Comprehensive account of the Spanish civil war with much detail on how the Stalin-backed Spanish communist party put more energy into eliminating its opponents on the Left than fighting the fascists, with the result that Franco won the civil war.
  • Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell (1938) Orwell’s eye-witness account of how the Stalin-backed communist party turned on its left-wing allies, specifically the Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification which Orwell was fighting with, and how he only just managed to escape arrest, interrogation and probable execution during the communist purges.

Communism in England

Modernity Britain: Opening the Box 1957–59 by David Kynaston (2014)

Opening the Box is the first book in volume three of David Kynaston’s epic social history of post-war Britain.

It opens on 10 January 1957 as Harold Macmillan drops by Buckingham Palace to be made Prime Minister, and ends on Friday 9 October 1959 as the final results show that the Conservatives have won a staggering majority of 100 in the General Election: so the book covers about two years and nine months of British domestic history.

I say ‘domestic’ because there is no, absolutely no, mention of the British Empire, the independence struggles / small wars the British Army was fighting, or the impact of foreign affairs on Britain. The Suez Crisis was dealt with briskly and briefly at the very end of the previous volume: this book is utterly focused on the domestic scene.

In its end points Kynaston provides the usual bombardment of quotations from hundreds of diverse sources, from housewives and soldiers, social planners and architects, young and thrusting writers and crusty old critics, politicians idealistic and cynical, commentators on rugby, cricket, soccer and horse-racing – alongside summaries of scores of numerous sociological reports and surveys carried out during these years into all aspects of social life, and social policy – on housing and new towns and flats, consumer behaviour, ideas of class, the family, and so on.

Unlike a traditional historian Kynaston skips quickly past even quite major political events from the period (and even these tend to be viewed through the prism of his diarists and journal keepers) in order to measure their impact on the ordinary men and women caught up in them.

This is his strength, his forte, the inclusion of so many contemporary voices – experts and ordinary, powerful and powerless – that immersing yourself in the vast tissue of quotes and voices, speeches and reports, diaries and newspaper articles, builds up a cumulative effect of making you feel you really know this period and have lived through these events. It is a powerful ‘immersive’ experience.

But in this, the fifth book in the series, I became increasingly conscious of a pronounced downside to this approach – which is that it lacks really deep analysis.

The experience of reading the book is to be continually skipping on from the FA Cup Final to the Epsom Derby to the domestic worries of Nella Last or Madge Martin to a snide note on the latest political developments by a well-placed observer like Anthony Crossland or Chips Channon, to a report by the town planners of Coventry or Plymouth alongside letters to the local press, to the notes of Anthony Heap, an inveterate attender of West End first nights, or the thoughts about the new consumer society of Michael Young, to the constant refrain of excerpts from the diaries of Kenneth Williams, Philip Larkin and even Macmillan himself.

This all undeniably gives you a panoramic overview of what was happening and, like the reader of any modern newspaper or consumer of a news feed, to some extent it’s up to you, the reader, to sift through the blizzard of voices and information and opinions and decide what is interesting or important to you.

The downside is that you never feel you’ve really got to the bottom of any of the issues. Even the big issues, the ones Kynaston treats at some length (20, 30, 40 pages) never really arrive at a conclusion.

The housing crisis

The housing crisis existed before the war, as social reformers became increasingly aware of just how many millions of British citizens were living in squalid, damp, unlit, unventilated Victorian slums with no running water, baths and only outside toilets – the kind of conditions reported on by George Orwell among others. But the situation was, of course, greatly exacerbated by the German blitz on most of Britain’s major cities, from Plymouth to Glasgow. By 1957 it was estimated there were some 850,000 dwellings unfit for human habitation in the UK.

The result was city councils who were well aware of the need to modernise their cities, to get rid of the old slums and rebuild not only houses but, potentially, the entire layout of the cities. Arguably this was the key issue for a generation after the war and Kynaston reverts to it repeatedly. He quotes town planners and architects as they engaged in fundamental debates about how to go about this task, the most obvious division being between ‘urbanists’, who thought working class communities should be rehoused within the city boundaries, if possible close to or on the same location as the existing slums, once they’d been demolished and new houses built – and ‘dispersionists’, who thought a large percentage of big city populations should be moved right out of the inner cities to a) brand new model estates built on the outskirts of the city, like Pollok outside Glasgow or b) to new towns, overspill towns built 20, 30 or 40 miles away, which could be planned and designed rationally from scratch (places like Stevenage or Harlow).

This debate overlapped with another binary set of alternatives: whether to re-accommodate people in houses or in blocks of flats, with barrages of argument on both sides.

Proponents of flats made the simple case that building vertically was the only way to accommodate such large populations a) quickly b) within the limited space within city borders. They were backed up by zealously modernist architects who had an ideological attachment to the teachings of Le Corbusier and the Bauhaus and thought, at their most extreme, that the new designs for living would change human nature and bring about a new, more egalitarian society. So aesthetics and radical politics were poisonously intertwined in the strong push towards flats.

Ranged against them were a) the tenants, who didn’t want to move into flats, pointing out that flats:

  • are noisy and poorly sound-proofed
  • have no privacy
  • have no gardens
  • so that the kids have to be penned up inside them (‘awful places for families to live in’ – diarist Marian Raynham)
  • the rents are higher

And b) the more conservative or sensitive architects and planners who recognised the simple fact – which comes over in survey after survey after survey that Kynaston quotes – that people wanted a house of their own. Interestingly, this wish turns out to itself be based on an even simpler idea – that almost everyone interviewed in numerous surveys, by writers and newspaper journalists – wanted privacy.

  • ‘I think that the natural way for people to live is in houses,’ Mrs E. Denington, vice-chair of the London County Council’s Housing Committee.
  • ‘Houses are preferred because they are more suitable for family life,’ Hilary Clark, deputy housing manager Wolverhampton

Kynaston emphasises that the years covered in his book were the tipping point.

1958 was the year when modernism indisputably entered the mainstream. (p.129)

During 1958 it became almost a cliché that London’s skyline was changing dramatically. (p.132)

Through the four books so far, and in this one as well, Kynaston gives extensive quotes from slum-dwellers, flat occupiers, new home owners, planners, designers, architects and the sociologists who produced report after report trying to clarify what people wanted and so help shape decisions on the issue.

But – and here’s my point – we never really get to the bottom of the problem. Kynaston quotes extensively and then… moves on to talk about Tommy Steele or the new Carry On film. But I wanted answers. I wanted to hear his opinion. I wanted a systematic exposition of the issues, history and debate which would lead up to conclusions about how we now see it, looking back 65 years.

But there is nothing like that. Kynaston just describes the debate as it unfolded, through the words of reports and surveys and sociologists and architects. But his debate never reaches a conclusion. And after a while that gets a bit frustrating.

Industrial relations

The 1945 Labour government famously nationalised a range of major industries and then, just as famously, ran out of ideas and lost the snap 1951 election.

As the 1940s turned into the 1950s industrial relations remained poor, with Kynaston repeatedly mentioning outbreaks of strikes, sometimes on a big enough scale (like the London dockers strike of 1949) to affect food supplies and spark a range of outraged opinions in the housewife diarists who are among his core contributors.

As the 1950s progress we get snippets of middle class people taking student or holiday jobs down among the working classes and being shocked by the widespread slackness and the culture of skiving which they discover. To balance the picture out, he also gives us, from time to time, vivid portraits of some of the ‘captains of industry’, heads of large companies who turn out to be eccentrics or egomaniacs.

Altogether, as usual, the reader has a vivid sense of the feel of the times and the experiences of a wide range of people living through them. But there are no ideas about industrial policy, trade union legislation, its impact on industry, the economy and the Labour Party which was often seen as being in thrall to stroppy and irresponsibly organisations.

In fact I did glean one idea from reading well over 1,500 pages of Kynaston’s history: this is that around about 1950, the British government and British industry had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to seize the industrial and commercial advantage across a wide range of industrial and consumer goods. German and Japanese industry still lay prostrate after the war and the Americans were focusing on their home markets. If the right investment had been channelled by a capitalist-minded government into the right industries, and if Britain had adopted German-style industrial relations (e.g. having worker representatives on the boards of companies) to ensure unified focus on rebuilding, then Britain might have anticipated what became known as ‘the German economic miracle’.

But it didn’t. The trade unions preferred the freedom of collective bargaining (i.e. found it more convenient to be outside management structure so that they could blame the management for everything and go on strike whenever it suited them), the Labour government was more concerned about a Socialist-inspired programme of nationalising industries in the hope of creating ‘the New Jerusalem’, and many managements found selling the same old products to the captive markets of the Empire and Commonwealth far easier than trying to create new products to market in Europe or America.

At all levels there was a failure of nerve and imagination, which condemned Britain to decades of industrial decline.

The catch is: this isn’t Kynaston’s idea – he quotes it from Correlli Barnett’s searing history of post-war failure, The Audit of War. In a nutshell, Kyanston’s wonderful books present the reader with a Christmas pudding stuffed with a vast multitude of factoids and snippets and post-war trivia and gossip and impressions deriving from an incredibly wide array of eye witnesses. But it is precious thin on ideas and analysis, and at the end of the day, it’s the big idea, the thesis, the interpretation which we tend to remember from history books.

The consumer society

This volume definitely depicts the arrival and triumph of ‘the consumer society’. I had thought it was a later phenomenon, of the 1960s, but no. By 1957 56% of adults owned a TV set, 26% a washing machine, 21% a telephone, only 12% a dishwasher, and 24% of the population owned a car. Aggressive new advertising campaigns promoted Fry’s Turkish Delight, Ready Brek, Gibbs SR, Old Spice, the Hoovermatic twin tub, Camay soap and Blue Band margarine.

People faced with ever-widening products to choose from need advice: hence the Egon Ronay Guide to restaurants, launched in 1957, followed in October by Which? magazine.

Even Mass-Observation, which started with such socialist ambitions in 1937, and has provided Kynaston with such a wealth of sociological material for the previous four books, had, by now, become ‘an organisation devoted to market research rather than sociological enquiry.’

Topics

1957

  • January – Bolton Wanderers beat Leeds United 5-3, the third series of Dixon of Dock Green kicks off, the Cavern nightclub opens in Liverpool, Manchester United beat Bilbao 3-0 to go into the semi-finals of the European Cup, Lawrence Durrell publishes Justine, Flanders and Swann open a musical review at the Fortune theatre, strike at the Briggs motor plant, 20-year-old Tommy Steele continues to be a showbiz sensation, end of the Toddlers’ Truce the government-enforced ban on children’s TV programmes between 6 and 7pm,
  • February – launch of BBC’s weekday new programme Tonight, publication of Richard Hoggart’s The Uses of Literacy, publication of Family and Kinship in East London by Michael Young and Peter Willmott (‘urbanists’ arguing that extended kinship networks in Bethnal Green provide emotional and practical support which Bethnal Greenites who’d moved out to new estates in Debden missed),
  • March – the Daily Mail Ideal Home exhibition visited by the Queen and Prince Philip, a Gallup survey showed 48% wanted to emigrate, start of big shipbuilding and engineering union strikes,
  • April – opening night of John Osborne’s play The Entertainer
  • May – Manchester United lose the FA Cup Final 2-1 to Aston Villa, petrol comes off the ration after five months
  • June – British Medical Council report linking smoking to lung cancer (reinforcing Richard Doll’s groundbreaking 1950 report) the government refuses to intervene; ERNIE makes the first Premium Bonds random draw, brainchild of Harold Macmillan; end of the pioneering photojournalistic magazine Picture Post founded in 1938, whose star photographer was Bert Hardy;
  • 20 July Prime Minister Harold Macmillan speaks at a Tory rally in Bedford to mark 25 years’ service by Mr Lennox-Boyd, the Colonial Secretary, as MP for Mid-Bedfordshire, and claims that ‘most of our people have never had it so good’; national busman’s strike; publication of Room at the Top by John Braine.
  • September – the Wolfenden Report recommends the decriminalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults in private; Ted Hughes’ first volume of poetry, The Hawk In The Rain, published; film version of Lucky Jim released, criticised for watering down the book’s realism
  • October – at Labour Party conference Nye Bevan comes out against nuclear disarmament, disillusioning his followers and creating a rift between the party and much of the left-leaning intelligentsia; 4 October Sputnik launched into orbit by the Russians; fire at the Windscale nuclear power plant; publication of Declaration, an anthology of essays by Angry Young Men (and one woman): Doris Lessing, Colin Wilson, John Osborne, John Wain, Kenneth Tynan, Bill Hopkins, Lindsay Anderson and Stuart Holroyd.
  • November – top of the charts is That’ll Be The Day by Buddy Holly and the Crickets; the Russians launch a second satellite, this one with a dog, Laika, aboard; the General Post Office introduces postal codes; Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament set up in response to Britain’s detonation of a H-bomb;
  • December – the Queen’s first Christmas broadcast, from Sandringham;

1958

  • resignation of the Chancellor Peter Thorneycroft after his insistence that government spending should be cut was rejected; launch if Bunty comic for girls
  • February – launch of Woman’s Realm magazine; 6 February the Munich Air Disaster in which a plane carrying the Manchester United football team, support staff and eight journalists crashed on take-off, killing 23;
  • March 1 BBC’s Radiophonic Workshop opens;
  • April – publication of Parkinson’s Law and Dr No; first CND march to Aldermaston; Balthazar, second volume in The Alexandria Quartet by Lawrence Durrell; Raymond’s Revuebar opens in Soho; London bus strike;
  • May first performance of The Birthday Party by Harold Pinter and A Taste of Honey by Shelagh Delaney and Chicken Soup with Barley by Arnold Wesker;
  • July The Darling Buds of May by H.E. Bates; introduction of Green Shield Stamps; the first Little Chef; the Empire and Commonwealth Games held in Cardiff;
  • August – release of the first single by Cliff Richard; Kenton and Shula Archer born; the Empire theatre in Portsmouth closes down, replaced by a supermarket; Notting Hill Riots, the most serious public disorder of the decade, petrol bombs, knives, razors, huge mobs chanting ‘Kill the niggers’ – the race problem Winston Churchill had fretted about in 1951 had arrive with a vengeance with about 165,000 non-white immigrants living in the UK; coincidentally, the launch of The Black and White Minstrel Show; Christopher Mayhew presents a TV series titled Does Class Matter?
  • September – Carry On, Sergeant, first of the Carry On films, released; publication of Culture and Society by Raymond Williams, which more or less founded ‘cultural studies’;
  • October – first editions of Grandstand and Blue Peter;
  • November – publication of The Rise of the Meritocracy by Michael Young;
  • December 3 National Coal Board announces the closure of 36 coal mines, as a result of falling demand due to coal being ‘brutally undercut’ by oil (p.236); 5 December Macmillan opens the 8.5-mile-long Preston bypass, first stretch of motorway in England, which will become part of the M6; John Betjeman’s Collected Poems published, representing one strand of middle class culture, while A Bear Called Paddington is published, first in a series of books, plays and films which continues to this day; 30 the government announces the full convertibility of the pound, meaning it won’t have to run down gold stocks defending it, but at the same time becomes vulnerable to speculation;

1959

  • January Henry Cooper becomes British and British Empire heavyweight champion;
  • February 3 Buddy Holly dies aged 22; film version of Room at the Top released marking ‘the start of the British new Wave in the cinema’; debut of Fings Ain’t Wot They Used T’Be at the Theatre Royal Stratford East; March To Aldermaston a documentary about the 1958 march, edited by Lindsay Anderson with Richard Burton reading Christopher Logue’s script;
  • March release of Carlton-Brown of the Foreign Office starring Terry-Thomas; the year’s most popular film, Carry On Nurse; Goldfinger published, the seventh James Bond novel; march from Aldermaston to London; expansionary Budget;
  • May: C.P. Snow gives his lecture about the two cultures (ie most people who run things knowing masses about the arts and nothing about science); Sapphire directed by Basil Dearden is a whodunnit with strong racial overtones; 17th a black student Kelso Cochrane is stabbed to death in Notting Hill leading to raised tensions in West London and ‘Keep Britain White’ rallies and worried reports about the lack of ‘racial integration’ in Birmingham;
  • June
  • July: The Teenage Consumer, a pamphlet by Mark Abrams defining them as aged 15-24 and unmarried;
  • August: Cliff Richard number 1 with Livin’ Doll; President Eisenhower makes a state visit and is on TV chatting with Harold Macmillan;
  • September: City of Spades by Colin McInnes and Billy Liar by Keith Waterhouse published;
  • October: The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner by Alan Sillitoe; Noggin the Nog created by Oliver Postgate and Peter Firmin; and the General Election: Conservatives win 49.4% of the vote and 365 seats, Labour 43.8% and 258, the Liberals 6, giving the Conservatives an overall majority of 100.

Studies and surveys

Being a list of the studies and surveys carried out during the period by sociologists, universities, newspapers and polling organisations:

  • 1954 Early Leaving a study of who left state school early, and why (children of the unskilled working class made up 20% of grammar school intake but only 7% of sixth forms)
  • 1957 Abrams study of 200 working class married couples (they lacked the ambition required to push their children on to further education)
  • 1958 Edward Blishen survey of TV’s impact on families (too much violence; difficult to get the kids to go to bed afterwards)
  • 1958 J.B. Cullingworth surveyed 250 families who’d moved to an overspill estate in Worsley from Salford
  • 1959 J.B. Cullingworth surveyed families who’d moved to Swindon
  • Floud et al study of grammar schools in Hertfordshire and Middlesborough (over half of working class parents wanted no further education for their children after school)
  • Margot Jeffreys interviewed housewives in an out-county LCC estate in Hertfordshire (1954-5)
  • 1957 Maurice Broady conducted interviews on the huge Pollok estate outside Glasgow
  • Eve Bene survey of 361 London grammar school boys on attitudes and expectations (45% of working class kids wanted to stay on past 16, compared with 65% of middle class pupils)
  • 1958 Ruth Glass investigation of racial prejudice
  • 1958 Geoffrey Gorer study of television viewing habits (families don’t talk as much)
  • 1958 Television and the Child by Hilde Himmelweit (kids routinely watch TV till it stops, TV is a great stimulator but fleetingly, shallowly)
  • 1962 Brian Jackson and Dennis Marsden Education and the Working Class a study of 88 working class kids in Huddersfield who went to grammar school (charts the parents’ progressive incomprehension of what their children are studying)
  • 1958 The Boss by Roy Lewis and Rosemary Stewart, about the social background of captains of industry e.g. family connections and public school still paramount
  • 1959 The Crowther Report, 15 to 18 (children of unskilled working class over-represented, the kids of non-manual workers under-represented: i.e. they were a sink of the poorest)
  • 1959 Ferdynand Zweig survey of working class men and their attitudes to washing machines
  • 1960 Michael Carter survey of 200 secondary modern schoolchildren as they left school
  • 1961 William Liversidge survey of grammar school and secondary modern school leavers

Patronising and condescending

Although Kynaston several times harps on the fact that Macmillan (Prime Minister from 1957 to 1963) was an Old Etonian, that his first Chancellor, Peter Thorneycroft, was another old Etonian and when he was sacked he was replaced by Derick Heathcoat Amory, another old Etonian, that in fact nearly half of the Macmillan cabinet went to Eton – there turns out to be surprisingly less condescension and patronage from these phenomenally upper-class toffs as you’d imagine. In fact the reverse: Macmillan’s diaries worry about all aspects of the political and international scene but when he tours the country and meets people, I was rather touched by his genuine concern.

No, the really condescending and patronising comments come, as so often, not from the politicians (who, after all, had to be careful what they said) but from the intellectual ‘elite’, from the writers and cultural commentators and architects who all too often looked right down their noses at the ghastly taste and appalling interests of the proles.

Housing

Throughout the book, most of the modern architects regard themselves as experts on human nature, experts on what people want, and are bravely, boldly undeterred by the actually expressed opinions of real people in places like public meetings, letters to newspapers and suchlike bourgeois distractions. Alison and Peter Smithson were among the leaders of the British school of Brutalism. For them architecture was an ethic and an art. As Alison wrote: ‘My act of form-giving has to invite the occupiers to add their intangible quality of use.’ They helped to develop the notion of ‘streets in the sky’, that ‘communities’ could be recreated on concrete walkways suspended between blocks of flats, a form of ‘urbanism that abandoned the primacy of the ground plane in favour of a rich spatial interplay of different layers of activity’.

No matter that the overwhelming majority of ordinary people opposed these plans. The architect knows best. And the planners. Kynaston lists scores of chief architects and planners in cities like Glasgow, Birmingham, Coventry, London, who oversaw a quickening pace of mass demolitions, of slums, of old buildings of all kinds, in order to widen roads, create urban dual carriageways, build new blocks of flats, taller, more gleaming, more visionary, streets in the sky! And if the poor proles who would then be shepherded into these badly built, dark, leaky, anti-social blocks murmured their reluctance, they were ignored, and patronised. Kynaston quotes an article written by Raphael Samuel on the Labour council of Aberdare in South Wales who devised a plan to demolish a third of the town’s houses despite vehement opposition from the inhabitants.

The Glamorgan planners did not set out to destroy a community. They wanted to attack the slums and give to the people of Aberdare the best of the open space and the amenities which modern lay-out can provide. It did not occur to them that there could be any opposition to a scheme informed by such benevolent intentions; and, when it came, they could only condemn it as ‘myopic’. (quoted page 320)

My point is – neither the planners nor architects who refused to listen to ordinary people were Old Etonians; the opposite; they tended to be locally-born, Labour-voting architects and administrators which made their frustration with their own people’s obstinacy all the more pointed.

Culture

The situation was different in the humanities where the most vociferous Marxists tended to have had staggeringly privileged upbringings. Take the Marxists historians E.P. Thompson (educated at the Dragon Preparatory School in Oxford, Kingswood private School in Bath and Corpus Christi College, Cambridge) and Christopher Hill (St Peter’s Private School, York and Balliol College, Oxford), they took it on themselves and their tiny cohort of like-minded communists and academics, to define what the working classes really wanted, and it turned out it wasn’t clean accommodation with hot and cold running water, a washing machine and a nippy new car out the front – Thompson and Hill knew that the working classes really wanted to create a new kind of man for the modern age!

Thus Kynaston ironically quotes E.P. Thompson ticking off Labour politician Anthony Crosland for the crime of suggesting, in his pamphlet The Future of Socialism, that after a decade of austerity and rationing what the people wanted was cafés, bright lights and fun. No no no, lectures Thompson:

Men do not only want the list of things which Mr Crosland offers; they want also to change themselves as men.

Says who? Says Edward Thompson, Kingswood School Corpus Christi College.

However fitfully and ineffectually, they want other and greater things; they want to stop killing one another; they want to stop this pollution of their spiritual life which runs through society as rivers carried their sewage and refuse throughout nineteenth-century industrial towns.

‘This pollution of their spiritual life’ – Thompson is talking about television, specifically ITV, which was polluting the working class with poisons like Gunsmoke and Opportunity Knocks. The actual working class has always been a terrible disappointment to men like Thompson and Hill. Kynaston details at length their agonising about whether to leave the communist party after the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, and then how they go on to set up independent Marxist magazines and write articles for other like-minded over-educated academics who fondly thought their little articles made a bit of difference to anything.

But it wasn’t just the privately educated Marxists, genuine men of the people like playwright Arnold Wesker, son of a cook and a tailor’s machinist, who had a really tough upbringing and meagre education in  Stepney and Hackney. He is quoted as attending a left-wing meeting addressed by Raymond Williams (grammar school and Trinity College, Cambridge), author of the pioneering book Culture and Society and then Labour front-bencher Richard Crossman (Winchester and new College), who wrote a column in the Daily Mirror. This is Wesker describing the meeting in a letter to his wife:

How could he, as a Socialist, support a paper [the Mirror], which, for its vulgarity, was an insult to the mind of the working class; a paper which painted a glossy, film-star world. (quoted p.143)

The point is that, at this distance, I admire Crossman for writing a column in the Mirror, the bestselling newspaper of its day i.e. the most-read by the ‘working classes’ – for addressing the world as it is, for making the most of it, and find it hard not to dislike Wesker for his arrogance: ‘the mind of the working class’ – where is that exactly? how does he, Wesker, know what ‘the mind of the working class’ is thinking, or wants?

A little later Kynaston quotes the anthropologist Geoffrey Gorer (Charterhouse and Jesus College, Cambridge) who wrote a series of articles about television in which ‘he came down hard on working class viewers’:

Not only did they eschew ‘topical programmes, discussions and brains trusts, serious music and ballet,’ instead obstinately preferring ‘films and serials, variety and quizzes’, but almost half of them were ‘addicts’ (defined as watching at least four hours a night), with as a result ‘all sense of proportion lost in their gross indulgence, and their family life, if not wrecked, at least emptied of nearly all its richness and warmth.’ (p.152)

My point being that is it not Macmillan and his Old Etonian chums saying this; it was left wing architects, planners, historians, intellectuals, writers, anthropologists and sociologists who were most critical and patronising of the actual working class as it actually existed (despairing that ‘the workers’ were not the idealised heroes of communist propaganda, but lazy blokes who liked to drink beer from cans in front of the Benny Hill show).

Race

There is a similar sense of disconnect on the issue of race and immigration, which Kynaston explores in some detail à propos the Notting Hill Riots of August 1958.

He shows how almost all the reporters, journalists, sociologists and so on who visited Notting Hill and other areas with high immigrant populations (the West Midlands was the other hotspot) discovered, not the virulent hatred of the American South, but nonetheless consistent opinions that immigrants got unfair advance on the housing waiting lists, exploited the benefits system, lived in overcrowded houses and made a lot of noise – all leading to a strong groundswell of popular opinion that immigration needed to be controlled. (There were 2,000 immigrants from Commonwealth countries in 1953, 11,000 in 1954, 40,000 by 1957).

But all the leading politicians, and most MPs, stood firmly against introducing immigration restrictions and were careful not to blame or stigmatise the coloured communities, even when there were gross incidents of racially aggravated riots, like at Notting Hill. The politicians realised it would be very difficult to devise any form of immigration control which wasn’t, on some level, based on the fact that you were trying to stop people with black skins entering the country i.e. naked racism, tantamount to apartheid in Wedgwood Benn’s opinion.

The handful of Tory MPs who did call for restrictions accompanied were shouted down. At one parliamentary meeting, one Tory MP, Cyril Osborne, accompanied his calls with accusations that blacks were lazy, sick or criminal, and drew down such a tsunami of criticism that he was reduced to tears. All MPs observing this realised that immigration was not a topic to speak out on. If any mention was made of it, it must be in the most positive and emollient terms. Thus the political class, the men who ruled the country, painted themselves into a position where free and frank debate of the issue was impossible.

But the actual population of the country, ‘the people’ which all parties claimed to speak for, disagreed. There is a surprising paucity of sociological research, field studies and surveys on the subject (compared with the welter of research done into the endlessly fascinating subject of ‘class’). But Kynaston quotes a Gallup poll taken at the time of the riots, in August 1958, which revealed that:

  • 71% disapproved of mixed marriages
  • 61% would consider moving if significant numbers of coloured people moved into their neighbourhood
  • 55% wanted restrictions on non-white immigration
  • 54% didn’t want people from the Commonwealth put on housing waiting lists on the same level with locals

People’s opinions were simply ignored. The rulers of the country knew best. No attempt was made to limit immigration which continued to grow throughout the 1960s and indeed up to the present day, which has resulted in our present blissful political situation.


Related links

Related reviews

Reviews of fiction from the period

The Lion and the Unicorn by George Orwell (1941)

In all countries the poor are more national than the rich, but the English working class are outstanding in their abhorrence of foreign habits. Even when they are obliged to live abroad for years they refuse either to accustom themselves to foreign food or to learn foreign languages. Nearly every Englishman of working-class origin considers it effeminate to pronounce a foreign word correctly.

The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius was published in February 1941, well into the Second World War, after Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain. It is a long essay, divided into three parts.

  1. England Your England (35 pages)
  2. Shopkeepers at War (19 pages)
  3. The English Revolution (9 pages)

The three essays 1. describe the essence of Englishness and records changes in English society over the previous thirty years or so 2. make the case for a socialist system in England 3. argue for an English democratic socialism, sharply distinct from the totalitarian communism of Stalin.

Now, at this distance of 76 years, the political content seems to me almost completely useless. After the war, the socialist policies carried out by Attlee’s government, thirty years of ‘Butskellism’ and Britain’s steady industrial decline into the 1970s which was brutally arrested by Mrs Thatcher’s radical economic and social policies of the 1980s, followed by Tony Blair’s attempt to create a non-socialist Labour Party in the 1990s, and all the time the enormous social transformations wrought by ever-changing technology – the political, social, economic, technological and cultural character of England has been transformed out of all recognition.

That said, this book-length essay is still worth reading as a fascinating social history of its times and for its warm evocation of the elements of the English character, some of which linger on, some of which have disappeared.

England Your England

By far the longest section is part one which is an extended evocation of all aspects of English character, so powerful, well-written and thought-provoking that it is often reprinted on its own. In its affection for all aspects of England it continued the nostalgia for an older, less commercialised, more decent England which marked his previous book, the novel Coming Up For Air.

What really marks it out is not the truth or otherwise of Orwell’s statements, but the tremendously pithy lucidity with which he expresses them. If they are not true, many of us older white liberals wish they were true. The essay invites you to play a sort of ‘Where’s Wally’ game of deciding whether you agree or disagree with his generalisations, and why. It has a kind of crossword-y kind of pleasure.

What, he asks, is England?

The clatter of clogs in the Lancashire mill towns, the to-and-fro of the lorries on the Great North Road, the queues outside the Labour Exchanges, the rattle of pin-tables in the Soho pubs, the old maids hiking to Holy Communion through the mists of the autumn morning – all these are not only fragments, but characteristic fragments, of the English scene.

Other aspects of Englishness, as Orwell perceived it in 1941, include: solid breakfasts and gloomy Sundays, smoky towns and winding roads, green fields and red pillar-boxes, love of flowers and gardening, hobbies and the essential privateness of English life. An Englishman’s home is his castle means he can tell the authorities to buzz off and mind their own business.

We are a nation of flower-lovers, but also a nation of stamp-collectors, pigeon-fanciers, amateur carpenters, coupon-snippers, darts-players, crossword-puzzle fans. All the culture that is most truly native centres round things which even when they are communal are not official — the pub, the football match, the back garden, the fireside and the ‘nice cup of tea’.

Religion?

The common people are without definite religious belief, and have been so for centuries. The Anglican Church never had a real hold on them, it was simply a preserve of the landed gentry, and the Nonconformist sects only influenced minorities. And yet they have retained a deep tinge of Christian feeling, while almost forgetting the name of Christ.

This strikes me as true. A kind of buried Anglicanism flavours most mid-century English culture, in Auden the Anglican returnee, Vaughan Williams the agnostic Anglican or Larkin the atheist Anglican. This idea of the softening influence of a non-fanatical, non-Catholic, barely believed religion, leads on to the next idea. If you have read his writings of the 1930s it comes as no surprise when he says:

The gentleness of the English civilization is perhaps its most marked characteristic. You notice it the instant you set foot on English soil. It is a land where the bus conductors are good-tempered and the policemen carry no revolvers. In no country inhabited by white men is it easier to shove people off the pavement. And with this goes something that is always written off by European observers as ‘decadence’ or hypocrisy, the English hatred of war and militarism. It is rooted deep in history, and it is strong in the lower-middle class as well as the working class.

This reminds me of a consistent thread in Kipling’s writing which is righteous anger at the hypocrisy with which the general population despise and abuse soldiers – until they need them!

I went into a public ‘ouse to get a pint o’ beer,
The publican ‘e up an’ sez, ” We serve no red-coats here.”
The girls be’ind the bar they laughed an’ giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an’ to myself sez I:
O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ ” Tommy, go away ” ;
But it’s ” Thank you, Mister Atkins,” when the band begins to play… (Tommy, 1890)

This anti-militarism has a comic side in that the English only seem to remember their terrible defeats: the Somme, Dunkirk. As Orwell puts it with typical pithiness:

The most stirring battle-poem in English is about a brigade of cavalry which charged in the wrong direction.

This anti-militarism goes alongside a profound respect for the law; not necessarily obeying it, but knowing it is there and can be appealed to at all times. ‘Oi, you can’t do that to me, I aven’t done anything wrong’ is a universal cry of the English crook and trouble-maker. The law may be organised to protect the property of the rich but it isn’t as absolutely corrupt as in other countries, and it certainly hasn’t ceased to matter, as it has in the totalitarian states.

Abroad?

An old saying had it that ‘wogs begin at Calais’ and the recent Brexit vote confirms the underlying xenophobia of the British who have a proud tradition of never learning a word of a foreign language, even if they’ve lived in France or Spain for decades. This rejection of the foreign partly accounts for English philistinism:

The English are not gifted artistically. They are not as musical as the Germans or Italians, painting and sculpture have never flourished in England as they have in France. Another is that, as Europeans go, the English are not intellectual.

Class?

England is the most class-ridden country under the sun. It is a land of snobbery and privilege, ruled largely by the old and silly.

Towards the end of the essay Orwell analyses the role of the ruling class. Basically, they have been unable to get to grips with the modern world and retreated into Colonel Blimpish stupidity.

One of the dominant facts in English life during the past three quarters of a century has been the decay of ability in the ruling class.

The great public schools, the army, the universities, all teach the upper classes to rely on forms and behaviour which was suitable to the 1880s. The fact that Germany was out-producing British industry by 1900, that America was emerging as the strongest economy in the world, that the working classes were becoming organised and demanding a say in the running of the country? Go the club and surround yourself with like-minded cigar-puffing buffoons and dismiss it all as easily as dismissing the waiter.

This refusal to face the world, this decision to be stupid, explains much. It explains the astonishing sequence of humiliating military defeats – in the Crimea, the Zulu War, the Boer War, the Great War the British ruling class, as epitomised by its upper class twit general, consistently failed in every aspect of war-making. In each case initial defeats were only clawed back when a younger, less ‘educated’ cohort of officers took charge.

Orwell continues the sheer stupidity of the ruling class in his description of the terrifically posh Tory politicians who ran British foreign policy during the 1930s. Two things happened: the empire declined and we completely failed to understand the rise of the totalitarian states. To take the second first, upper-class numpties like Lord Halifax (Foreign Secretary 1938-40) and Neville Chamberlain (Prime Minister 1937-40) were paralysed during the 1930s. They were terrified of Stalin’s communism and secretly sympathised with much of Fascist policy, but couldn’t bring themselves to deal with the vulgar little Hitler. Their upbringing at public schools and running an empire where everyone said, Yes sahib, completely unprepared them for the modern world.

They could not struggle against Nazism or Fascism, because they could not understand them. Neither could they have struggled against Communism, if Communism had been a serious force in western Europe. To understand Fascism they would have had to study the theory of Socialism, which would have forced them to realize that the economic system by which they lived was unjust, inefficient and out-of-date. But it was exactly this fact that they had trained themselves never to face. They dealt with Fascism as the cavalry generals of 1914 dealt with the machine-guns – by ignoring it.

(Lord Halifax’s Wikipedia page relates that he almost created a massive scene when he first met Adolf Hitler and handed him his overcoat, thinking him to be the footman. Exactly. To Halifax’s class, everyone who didn’t go to their school must be a servant.)

And what about the British Empire? On the face of it between 1918 and 1945 the British Empire reached its greatest geographical extent, not least due to the addition of the various mandates in the Middle East carved out of the former Ottoman Empire. But despite the razamataz of the 1924 Empire Exhibition and so on, it’s quite clear that for most ordinary people and pretty much all intellectuals, the age of empire was over. it just took the ruling classes another 30 odd years to realise it. Orwell gives a reason for this decline in belief in the empire which I hadn’t heard before.

It was due to the rise of bureaucracy. Orwell specifically blames the telegraph and radio. In the golden age of empire the world presented a vast playground for buccaneering soldiers and ruthless merchants. No more.

The thing that had killed them was the telegraph. In a narrowing world, more and more governed from Whitehall, there was every year less room for individual initiative. Men like Clive, Nelson, Nicholson, Gordon would find no place for themselves in the modern British Empire. By 1920 nearly every inch of the colonial empire was in the grip of Whitehall. Well-meaning, over-civilized men, in dark suits and black felt hats, with neatly rolled umbrellas crooked over the left forearm, were imposing their constipated view of life on Malaya and Nigeria, Mombasa and Mandalay. The one-time empire builders were reduced to the status of clerks, buried deeper and deeper under mounds of paper and red tape. In the early twenties one could see, all over the Empire, the older officials, who had known more spacious days, writhing impotently under the changes that were happening. From that time onwards it has been next door to impossible to induce young men of spirit to take any part in imperial administration. And what was true of the official world was true also of the commercial. The great monopoly companies swallowed up hosts of petty traders. Instead of going out to trade adventurously in the Indies one went to an office stool in Bombay or Singapore. And life in Bombay or Singapore was actually duller and safer than life in London. Imperialist sentiment remained strong in the middle class, chiefly owing to family tradition, but the job of administering the Empire had ceased to appeal. Few able men went east of Suez if there was any way of avoiding it.

And of course, Orwell had seen this for himself, first hand, as an imperial servant in Burma from 1922 to 1928.

Lastly, the final section of part one describes the undermining of the rigid old class system since the Great War by the advent of new technologies, by the growth of light industry on the outskirts of towns, and the proliferation of entirely new types of middle-class work.

Britain was no longer a country of rich landowners and poverty-stricken peasants, of brutal factory owners and a huge immiserated proletariat. New technology was producing an entire new range of products – cheap clothes and shoes and fashions, cheap movies, affordable cars, houses with inside toilets etc, at the same time as the new industries no longer required thick-muscled navvies or exhausted women leaned over cotton looms, but educated managers, chemists, technicians, secretaries, salesmen and so on, who call into being a supporting class of doctors, lawyers, teachers, artists, etc. This is particularly noticeable in the new townships of the south.

In Slough, Dagenham, Barnet, Letchworth, Hayes – everywhere, indeed, on the outskirts of great towns – the old pattern is gradually changing into something new. In those vast new wildernesses of glass and brick the sharp distinctions of the older kind of town, with its slums and mansions, or of the country, with its manor-houses and squalid cottages, no longer exist. There are wide gradations of income, but it is the same kind of life that is being lived at different levels, in labour-saving flats or council houses, along the concrete roads and in the naked democracy of the swimming-pools. It is a rather restless, cultureless life, centring round tinned food, Picture Post, the radio and the internal combustion engine. It is a civilization in which children grow up with an intimate knowledge of magnetoes and in complete ignorance of the Bible. To that civilization belong the people who are most at home in and most definitely OF the modern world, the technicians and the higher-paid skilled workers, the airmen and their mechanics, the radio experts, film producers, popular journalists and industrial chemists. They are the indeterminate stratum at which the older class distinctions are beginning to break down.

It is fascinating to learn that this process, the breakdown of old class barriers due to new industries, new consumer products and a new thrusting classless generation, which I tended to associate with the 1960s – maybe because the movies and music of the 1960s proclaim this so loudly and are still so widely available – was in fact taking place as early as the 1920s.

The effect of all this is a general softening of manners. It is enhanced by the fact that modern industrial methods tend always to demand less muscular effort and therefore to leave people with more energy when their day’s work is done. Many workers in the light industries are less truly manual labourers than is a doctor or a grocer. In tastes, habits, manners and outlook the working class and the middle class are drawing together.

2. Shopkeepers at War

In this part Orwell declares that the old ruling class and their capitalism must be overthrown for the simple reason that:

private capitalism, that is, an economic system in which land, factories, mines and transport are owned privately and operated solely for profit — DOES NOT WORK.

The war so far has shown that a planned economy will always beat an unplanned one. Both Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia have states and economies guided from the top downwards towards clearly articulated political ends (winning wars). A capitalist society is made up of thousands of businesses all competing against and undermining each other, and undermining the national good. His example is British firms which right up to the declaration of war were still aggressively seeking contracts with Hitler’s Germany to sell them vital raw materials required for weapons, tin, rubber, copper. Madness!

Only a modern centralised, nationalised economy can successfully fight off other centralised nationalised economies. This, argues Orwell, is why some kind of socialist revolution must take place. In order to win the war, the British government must, in the name of the people, take over central running of all aspects of the economy.

In this section Orwell gives us a good working definition of socialism, the definition which was promised and then so glaringly absent from The Road To Wigan Pier four years earlier. Maybe it took those four years, Spain and distance from England, to be able to define it for himself.

Socialism is usually defined as “common ownership of the means of production”. Crudely: the State, representing the whole nation, owns everything, and everyone is a State employee. This does not mean that people are stripped of private possessions such as clothes and furniture, but it does mean that all productive goods, such as land, mines, ships and machinery, are the property of the State. The State is the sole large-scale producer. It is not certain that Socialism is in all ways superior to capitalism, but it is certain that, unlike capitalism, it can solve the problems of production and consumption. At normal times a capitalist economy can never consume all that it produces, so that there is always a wasted surplus (wheat burned in furnaces, herrings dumped back into the sea etc etc) and always unemployment. In time of war, on the other hand, it has difficulty in producing all that it needs, because nothing is produced unless someone sees his way to making a profit out of it. In a Socialist economy these problems do not exist. The State simply calculates what goods will be needed and does its best to produce them. Production is only limited by the amount of labour and raw materials. Money, for internal purposes, ceases to be a mysterious all-powerful thing and becomes a sort of coupon or ration-ticket, issued in sufficient quantities to buy up such consumption goods as may be available at the moment.

However, it has become clear in the last few years that “common ownership of the means of production” is not in itself a sufficient definition of Socialism. One must also add the following: approximate equality of incomes (it need be no more than approximate), political democracy, and abolition of all hereditary privilege, especially in education. These are simply the necessary safeguards against the reappearance of a class system. Centralised ownership has very little meaning unless the mass of the people are living roughly upon an equal level, and have some kind of control over the government.

Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted.

The nature of the revolution

So what would this English revolution consist of? The complete overthrow of the useless ruling class which is bedevilled by its own stupidity and simply unable to see the genuine threat that Hitler posed, able only to read him as a bulwark against Bolshevism and therefore a defender of all the privileges of England’s entrenched ruling class. Away with it in –

a complete shift of power. New blood, new men, new ideas — in the true sense of the word, a revolution… It is only by revolution that the native genius of the English people can be set free. Revolution does not mean red flags and street fighting, it means a fundamental shift of power… What is wanted is a conscious open revolt by ordinary people against inefficiency, class privilege and the rule of the old… Right through our national life we have got to fight against privilege, against the notion that a half-witted public-schoolboy is better fitted for command than an intelligent mechanic… Although there are gifted and honest individuals among them, we have got to break the grip of the moneyed class as a whole. England has got to assume its real shape. The England that is only just beneath the surface, in the factories and the newspaper offices, in the aeroplanes and the submarines, has got to take charge of its own destiny.

In this section he speaks right to the present moment and lists the agents of defeat, from pacifists through Oswald Mosley’s blackshirts to some Roman Catholics. But the real enemy, he says, is those who talk of peace, of negotiating peace with Hitler, a peace designed to leave in place all their perks and privileges, their dividends and servants. These are the worst, the most insidious enemies, both of the war effort and of the English people as a whole.

3. The English Revolution

We cannot establish anything that a western nation would regard as Socialism without defeating Hitler; on the other hand we cannot defeat Hitler while we remain economically and socially in the nineteenth century.

Orwell gives a sweeping trenchant review of the current political scene in England, 1941. All the parties of the left are incapable of reform, the Labour Party most of all since it is the party of the trade unions and therefore has a vested interest in the maintenenace and flourishing of capitalism. The tiny communist party appeals to deracinated individuals but has done more to put the man in the street off socialism than any other influence.

The Labour Party stood for a timid reformism, the Marxists were looking at the modern world through nineteenth-century spectacles. Both ignored agriculture and imperial problems, and both antagonised the middle classes. The suffocating stupidity of left-wing propaganda had frightened away whole classes of necessary people, factory managers, airmen, naval officers, farmers, white-collar workers, shopkeepers, policemen. All of these people had been taught to think of Socialism as something which menaced their livelihood, or as something seditious, alien, “anti-British” as they would have called it.

Therefore, the revolution must come from below. Sound utopian? It is the war which has made it a possibility. The policy of the ruling class in the run-up to the war, the shameful incompetence of the opening year – Dunkirk – have made obvious to absolutely everyone that change is needed. Now, for the first time in its history, a genuinely revolutionary socialist change is thinkable.

A Socialist movement which can swing the mass of the people behind it, drive the pro-Fascists out of positions of control, wipe out the grosser injustices and let the working class see that they have something to fight for, win over the middle classes instead of antagonising them, produce a workable imperial policy instead of a mixture of humbug and Utopianism, bring patriotism and intelligence into partnership – for the first time, a movement of such a kind becomes possible.

Here, at the climax of the essay, he gives six practical policies:

  1. Nationalisation of land, mines, railways, banks and major industries.
  2. Limitation of incomes, on such a scale that the highest tax free income in Britain does not exceed the lowest by more than ten to one.
  3. Reform of the educational system along democratic lines.
  4. Immediate Dominion status for India, with power to secede when the war is over.
  5. Formation of an Imperial General Council, in which the coloured peoples are to be represented.
  6. Declaration of formal alliance with China, Abyssinia and all other victims of the Fascist powers.

The general tendency of this programme is unmistakable. It aims quite frankly at turning this war into a revolutionary war and England into a Socialist democracy.

Wow! The verve, the intellectual confidence, and the optimism of these passages is thrilling!

In the final pages Orwell guesses what kind of revolution it will be, namely a revolution ‘with English characteristics’, the characteristics he so lovingly enumerated in the first section. He gives a complicated analysis of the many forces against it, including comparisons with Vichy France and guesses about the strategies of Hitler and Stalin, too complicated to summarise. The essays ends by repeatedly attacking the pacifism and defeatism of English intellectuals, left-wing intellectuals and so-called communists. It is an all-or-nothing struggle. We can’t go back. the world has completely changed. We must recognise these changes, grasp them, and take them forward in a sweeping social revolution which alone can guarantee victory.

It is goodbye to the Tatler and the Bystander, and farewell to the lady in the Rolls-Royce car. The heirs of Nelson and of Cromwell are not in the House of Lords. They are in the fields and the streets, in the factories and the armed forces, in the four-ale bar and the suburban back garden; and at present they are still kept under by a generation of ghosts. Compared with the task of bringing the real England to the surface, even the winning of the war, necessary though it is, is secondary. By revolution we become more ourselves, not less. There is no question of stopping short, striking a compromise, salvaging “democracy”, standing still. Nothing ever stands still. We must add to our heritage or lose it, we must grow greater or grow less, we must go forward or backward. I believe in England, and I believe that we shall go forward.

Wow! It must have been amazing to read this at the time.

And then what happened?

Churchill’s government did grasp the need for total war mobilisation on an unprecedented scale. Rationing was introduced and every effort made to quash luxury. If we ‘won’ the war it was because Hitler made the mad decision to invade Russia at the same time as the Japanese foolishly attacked America. Britain became the baby buoyed up between Russia and America.

And the war was barely over (May 1945) when Britain held a general election (July 1945) which to everyone’s amazement swept the victorious war leader Churchill from power and produced a socialist government with a huge majority. For the one and only time in its history the British enacted a sweep of revolutionary policies, nationalising the entire health service, extending free state education, and nationalising the key industries of coal, steel and so on. Within two years India was granted its independence. Surely these fulfilled most of Orwell’s definitions of revolution.

And yet… Private schools weren’t abolished and continued to serve as a beacon for privilege and snobbery. The banks and entire financial system was left untouched to flourish, continuing to orchestrate an essentially capitalist economy and redistribute money upwards towards the rich. Income was in no way controlled and so soon the divide between rich and poor opened up again. Massive social changes took place and yet – as Orwell had clearly seen, England’s essential character remained unchanged. Attlee’s government achieved much in five brief years but then was tumbled from power and England reverted to being ruled by upper-class twits, the twits who, like all their ilk live in the past, thought Britain was still a global power, and so took us into the Suez Crisis of 1956. But by then Orwell was long dead.

Conclusion

This is a brilliant long essay, one of the greatest in all English literature, a wonderful combination of nostalgic description for an idealised England, with a fascinating analysis of the social and political scene of his day, and then onto a stirringly patriotic call to fight not only to defeat fascism but to create a new, fairer society. It is impossible not to be stirred and inspired by the combination of incisive analysis, the novelist’s imaginative evocation of English character, and then a speech-writer’s stirring peroration.

However, it is all too easy, in my opinion, to let yourself get swept along by the unashamed patriotism and the bracing insights into ‘the English character’ so that you end up acquiescing in what turned out to be Orwell’s completely inaccurate predictions of the future and his completely unfounded faith in an English revolution.

A social revolution of sorts did take place during and immediately after the war, but what made it so English was the way that, deep down, it didn’t change anything at all.

London 1940 - seat of a socialist revolution?

London 1940 – seat of a socialist revolution?


Credit

‘The Lion and the Unicorn’ by George Orwell was published by Secker and Warburg in 1941. All references are to the 1978 Penguin paperback edition.

Related links

All Orwell’s major works are available online on a range of websites. Although it’s not completely comprehensive, I like the layout of the texts provided by the University of Adelaide Orwell website.

Related reviews