An Introduction to the English Novel

Volume II

Arnold Kettle

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781317362029
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Creative Writing
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

First published in 1953, this book forms the second part of Arnold Kettle's An Introduction to the English Novel. In this second part, Kettle builds a discussion of the modern English novel around the study of various books that have a more than casual significance in its development. He begins with an analysis of James, Hardy and Butler: three late Victorian writers whose work points forward to the major preoccupations of twentieth-century novelists. In his discussion of a dozen or so of these points, the author examines their progress in the long struggle of the novelist to see life steadily and whole, and points out some of the problems and hazards that beset the writer still.

'The selection both of novelists and their work is excellent… it is both shrewd and witty…'

The Times Literary Supplement

'Altogether this is a refreshing, challenging and original work, wholly adult in tone, and never pedantic or dull'

The Guardian

PART I

The Last Victorians

1

INTRODUCTION

The end of one epoch is the beginning of another. The three novels with the examination of which this volume opens do not look backwards. Each of these writers—Henry James, Butler, Hardy—is very much of his time; but if one calls them the last Victorians it is not to indicate a mere obstinate clinging to a passing world. There is more than a whiff of the future in their work.

The late Victorian period marks the beginning of the disintegration of the epoch ushered in a century before by the Industrial Revolution, the epoch in which Britain became the workshop and the banker of the world. After about 1870 the apparently secure foundations of the world of the London and Manchester business men began to be shaken. It was not until the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 that the full horror became clear, but by then for nearly half a century the process of disintegration had been going on. The late Victorian period may still seem to us superficially, as we look back on it, an era of stability, of the respectable elderly queen, of stuffy clothes and heavy architecture, of comfortable middle-class incomes from the Stock Exchange, of the English Sunday and the gradual extension of the franchise and of free education. But it was also an era of desperation—of a hectic and bloody imperial race against new upstart competitors, of the first modern economic slump, of the rise of the Labour movement as we know it, of the dock strike and Bloody Sunday, of the impact of Darwin and T. H. Huxley, of William Morris and Bernard Shaw (to say nothing of Ibsen and Tolstoy and Marx), of the aesthetes and the Yellow Book, of Charles Bradlaugh and Beatrice Webb.

In Samuel Butler and Thomas Hardy it is quite clearly the latter aspect of the age—the opposite of stability—that we find most strikingly expressed. They are, even to a casual glance, novelists of the disintegration, rebels and critics, crying out (sometimes, it seems to the sophisticated middle-class reader, a bit too shrilly) against the sanctities and ethics of the Victorian bourgeois world. Butler is very much a part of that world and this fact, as we shall see, has its effect on his writing. Hardy, the countryman, soaked in the older, pre-capitalist culture of peasant Wessex, is less involved in the values he is attacking and achieves in his two final novels, Tess and Jude, tragedy which—for all the limitations we shall have to examine—bitterly and poignantly captures a central truth of the era in which he lived.

Henry James is perhaps less obviously a novelist of the disintegration. The social aura that surrounds both the man and his work is that of the well-to-do Victorian middle class, leisured, well-fed, moving securely if not always elegantly through a scene cluttered up with bric-à-brac and objets d’art. But to see James merely as the rather snobbish sharer in such a world is to emphasise what is least important in a great novelist. James, it is true, was a bourgeois writer, the bourgeois novelist, one might say, at his most exquisite, most refined point. But his work, like that of Balzac—with whom he has more in common than a hasty estimate might allow—subtly transcends in much of its effect the ideas and the values which appear to infect it at its roots. There is, as we shall see, something wrong at the very heart of James the novelist. Yet this does not permit us to undervalue him. No novelist has explored with quite so fine, nor quite so disciplined an art the ramifications of the complex consciousness of latter-day bourgeois man. To read James uncritically or exclusively is, of course, fatal; but to read him with the kind of insight he deserves is to penetrate deep into the spiritual situation involved in the disintegration of the bourgeois world.

That James himself was at an obscure and impressive level of experience aware of this disintegration is revealed by implication in the remarkable novel The Princess Casamassima and then clearly as in a flash in the letter he wrote* at that most symbolic of moments—the outbreak of the First World War. In the last two years of his life he drew back from the exploration of this vision; but that he had had a glimpse of it is a measure of the quality of his perception.

These novelists of the late Victorian age are not technically, any more than socially, revolutionaries; but each of them had something new to say and therefore had to discover new means of expression, new ways of modifying or transforming existing techniques to meet new needs. With Butler and Hardy technical preoccupation is on a far lower level than with James. They are content, essentially, to stretch old forms a little in order to receive a new content. Butler, typically, looks back to the eighteenth century; he gets rid of the Dickensian plot along with the Dickensian poetry and other ‘literary garbage’. His analytical method, his consistent object of debunking humbug and pretension, together with his rather limited positive sense of human development, lead him to employ for his novel what is fundamentally the technique of Joseph Andrews or Vanity Fair, though his range is narrower, his control a good deal tighter and his view of life more incisive than is the case with either Fielding or Thackeray.

Hardy, for his part, uses and only slightly modifies the conventional nineteenth-century novel structure. His work is in the tradition of the English moral fable—of Hard Times and North and South and Silas Marner.

James is, in a far more striking degree, an innovator. His aim, as we shall see, is the exploration, in terms more subtle than any before attempted, of the furthest reaches of the refined consciousness. Hence his immense interest in presentation, his peculiar development of prose style (the inability in his last novels ever to resist that last, even more finely modulated qualification) and also his link with the immediate future development of the novel.

It is James rather than Butler and Hardy—for all their self-conscious modernity of theme and outlook—who is the principal signpost towards what we have come to think of as the characteristically ‘modern’ experiments of the early twentieth-century novel, towards—different as they are—Proust and Joyce and Virginia Woolf. Whether we are to regard this historical position as a strengthening of James’s claims to greatness will depend, of course, on whether we finally assess the trend of which his work is a part as a healthy and hopeful one or rather as a dead end, a withered branch,* of the main developing tradition of English fiction. It is one of the purposes of this little book to discuss this very question.

NOTES

* Quoted Vol. I, p. 85.

* See D. S. Savage: The Withered Branch, Six Studies in the Modern Novel (1950).

2

HENRY JAMES: THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY

(1880–81)

Compared with this the English novels which precede it, except perhaps those of Jane Austen, all seem a trifle crude. There is a habit of perfection here, a certainty and a poise, which is quite different from the merits and power of Oliver Twist or Wuthering Heights or even Middlemarch. The quality has something to do with the full consciousness of Henry James’s art. Nothing in The Portrait of a Lady is unconscious, nothing there by chance, no ungathered wayward strands, no clumsiness. No novelist is so absorbed as James in what he himself might call his ‘game’. But it is not an empty or superficial concern with ‘form’ that gives The Portrait of a Lady its quality. James’s manner, his obsession with style, his intricate and passionate concern with presentation, do not spring from a narrow ‘aesthetic’ attitude to his art.

James had in his style and perhaps in the life which it reflected an idiosyncrasy so powerful, so overwhelming, that to many it seemed a stultifying vice, or at least an inexcusable heresy.… He enjoyed an excess of intelligence and he suffered, both in life and art, from an excessive effort to communicate it, to represent it in all its fullness. His style grew elaborate in the degree that he rendered shades and refinements of meaning and feeling not usually rendered at all…. His intention and all his labour was to represent dramatically intelligence at its most difficult, its most lucid, its most beautiful point. This is the sum of his idiosyncrasy.¹

The Portrait of a Lady is not one of James’s ‘difficult’ novels; but Mr Blackmur’s remarks usefully remind us of the inadequacy of a merely formal approach to James’s work. The extraordinary richness of texture of his novels makes such an approach tempting; but it will take us neither to James’s triumphs nor to his failures.

The beauty of texture derives immediately from two qualities, which are ultimately inseparable. One is James’s ability to make us know his characters more richly, though not necessarily more vividly, than we know the characters of other novelists; the other is the subtlety of his own standpoint. Without the latter quality the former would not, of course, be possible. You cannot control the responses of your reader unless you are in complete control of your material.

In The Portrait of a Lady there are—looking at the question from an analytical point of view—two kinds of characters: those whom we know from straightforward, though not unsubtle, description by the author and those who reveal themselves in the course of the book. The latter are, obviously, the important ones. The former—Mrs Touchett, Henrietta Stackpole, the Countess Gemini, Pansy Osmond—are interesting primarily in their relationship to the chief characters, in their part in the pattern; we do not follow their existence out of their function in the book. But they are nevertheless not ‘flat’ characters. They come alive not as ‘characters’, not as personified ‘humours’, but as complete people (Pansy, perhaps, is the exception, but then is it not the intention that we should see her as scarcely an independent being at all?) and if we do not follow them out of the part of the plot which concerns them it is because our interests are more involved elsewhere, not because they do not have a full existence of their own.

The way Henry James introduces his characters to us depends entirely on the kind of function they are to have in his story. The main characters are never described as they are (i.e. as the author knows them to be) but—by and large—as Isabel Archer sees them. We know them at first only by the first impression that they make. We get to know better what they are like in the way that, in life, we get to know people better through acquaintance. And just as in life we are seldom, if ever, quite certain what another person is like, so in a Henry James novel we are often pretty much at sea about particular characters for considerable portions of the book. In The Portrait of a Lady the person whom at first we inevitably know least about is Madame Merle. Henry James lets us know right from the start that there is something sinister about her; we are made quickly to feel that Isabel’s reaction to her is less than adequate, but the precise nature of her character is not revealed until fairly far into the book.

It is not quite true to say that everything in The Portrait of a Lady is revealed through Isabel’s consciousness. We know, from the start, certain things that Isabel does not know. We know, for instance—and twice Henry James explicitly reminds us of it—more about Ralph Touchett’s feeling for Isabel than she herself perceives.

Indeed, there is a sense in which the novel is revealed to us through Ralph’s consciousness, for his is the ‘finest’, the fullest intelligence in the book and therefore he sees things—about Madame Merle, about Osmond, about Isabel herself—which Isabel does not see and inevitably such perceptions are transmitted to the reader. Again, we are offered important scenes—between Madame Merle and Osmond, between the Countess and Madame Merle—which reveal to us not the whole truth but enough of the truth about Madame Merle’s stratagems to put us at an advantage over Isabel.

The truth is that Henry James’s purpose in this novel is not to put Isabel between the reader and the situation (in the way that Strether’s consciousness is used in The Ambassadors) but to reveal to the reader the full implications of Isabel’s consciousness. For this to happen we must see Isabel not merely from the inside (i.e. know how she feels) but from the outside too. The method is, in fact, precisely the method of Emma, except that Jane Austen is rather more scrupulously consistent than Henry James. The scenes ‘outside’ Emma herself (like Jane Fairfax’s visits to the post office) are brought to our knowledge by being related by a third party in the presence of Emma herself. Our only ‘advantage’ over Emma herself is provided by the words which Jane Austen uses to describe her. Henry James, as we have seen, takes greater liberties. Yet it is worth observing that the great scene at the centre of The Portrait of a Lady (ch. XIII), in which Isabel takes stock of her situation, is of precisely the same kind as the scene in which (Vol. I, ch. XVI) Emma takes stock of her dealings with Harriet.

Since James’s purpose is to render the full implications of Isabel’s situation it is necessary that we should know more than Isabel, should see her, that is to say, from the outside. The question remains how much more should we know? And James’s answer is: just as much as is necessary for a fully sympathetic understanding. Thus we are to know that Madame Merle has drawn Isabel into a trap, but we are not to know why. The full story is kept back, not because Henry James is interested in suspense in the melodramatic sense, but because if we were in on the secret the nature of Isabel’s discovery of her situation could not be so effectively revealed. It is necessary to the novel that we should share Isabel’s suspicions and her awakening. In order to give the precise weight (not just the logical weight but the intricate weight of feelings, standards, loyalties) to the issues involved in her final dilemma we must know not just what has happened to Isabel but the way it has happened.

It is from such a consideration that there will emerge one of Henry James’s cardinal contributions to the art of the novel. With James the question ‘What happened?’ carries the most subtle, the most exciting ramifications. To no previous novelist had the answer to such a question seemed so difficult, its implications so interminable. To a George Eliot the question is complicated enough: to understand what happened to Lydgate we must be made aware of innumerable issues, facets of character, moral choices, social pressures. And yet deep in George Eliot’s novel is implicit the idea that if the reader only knows enough facts about the situation he will know the situation. It is the aim of Henry James to avoid the ‘about’ or, at least, to alter its status, to transform quantity into quality. His is the poet’s ambition: to create an object about which we say not ‘It means….’ but ‘It is….’ (In this he is with Emily Bronte.) We cannot understand Isabel Archer, he implies, unless we feel as she feels. And it is, indeed, because he succeeds in this attempt that The Portrait of a Lady though not a greater novel than Middlemarch is a more moving one.

As a rule when Henry James describes a character (as opposed to allowing the person to be revealed in action) the description is of the kind we have noticed in Emma or Middlemarch.

Mrs Touchett was certainly a person of many oddities, of which her behaviour on returning to her husband’s house after many months was a noticeable specimen. She had her own way of doing all that she did, and this is the simplest description of a character which, although by no means without liberal motions, rarely succeeded in giving an impression of suavity. Mrs Touchett might do a great deal of good, but she never pleased. This way of her own, of which she was so fond...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• PART I: THE LAST VICTORIANS
• PART II: THE TWENTIETH CENTURY—THE FIRST QUARTER
• PART III: THE TWENTIETH CENTURY—THE SECOND QUARTER
• Notes and References
• Reading List
• Index