Virginia Woolf and London

The Sexual Politics of the City

Susan Merrill Squier

• Publisher: The University of North Carolina Press
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780807865965, 9780807816370
• eBook ISBN: 9781469639918
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: English Literary Criticism
• Index: Literature

To Virginia Woolf, London was a source of creative inspiration, a setting for many of her works, and a symbol of the culture in which she lived and wrote. In a 1928 diary entry, she observed, "London itself perpetually attracts, stimulates, gives me a play & a story & a poem, without any trouble, save that of moving my legs through the streets." The city fascinated Woolf, yet her relationship with it was problematic. In her attempts to resolve her developmental struggles as a woman write in a patriarchal society, Woolf shaped and reshaped the image and meaning of London.

Using psychoanalytic, feminist, and social theories, Susan Squier explores the transformed meaning of the city in Woolf's essays, memoirs, and novels as it functions in the creation of a mature feminist vision. Squier shows that Woolf's earlier works depict London as a competitive patriarchal environment that excluded her, but her mature works portray the city as beginning to accept the force of female energy. Squier argues that this transformation was made possible by Woolf's creative ability to appropriate and revise the masculine literary and cultural forms of her society. The act of writing, or "scene making," allowed Woolf to break from her familial and cultural heritage and recreate London in her own literary voice and vision.

Virginia Woolf and London is based on analyses of Woolf's memoirs, her little-known early and mature London essays, Night and Day, Mrs. Dalloway, Flush, and The Years. By focusing on Woolf's changing attitudes about the city, Squier is able to define Woolf's evolving belief that women could "reframe" the city-scape and use it to imagine and create a more egalitarian world. Squier's study offers significant new insights into the interplay between self and society as it shapes the work of a woman writer.

Originally published in 1985.

A UNC Press Enduring Edition -- UNC Press Enduring Editions use the latest in digital technology to make available again books from our distinguished backlist that were previously out of print. These editions are published unaltered from the original, and are presented in affordable paperback formats, bringing readers both historical and cultural value.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

“Why do I dramatise London perpetually?” Virginia Woolf wondered in the last year of her life (L, VI: 434). In this book I argue that Woolf used the city in her works to explore the cultural sources and significance of her experience as a woman in a patriarchal society. Woolf’s treatment of the city in her fiction and essays, where it appears as setting, image, and symbol, reveals the literary techniques she used to attain an authentic voice as a woman writer. From the personal and psychological focus of the first chapter, my analysis broadens to consider Woolf’s critique of culture as a whole, for in her treatment of the city Woolf reveals not only her personal history but also her developing understanding of the political and psychological implications of gender and class distinctions.¹

Like many women, Woolf confronted a problematic dual identification in her struggle to become a writer; she modeled herself both on her father and the male literary heritage, and on her mother and the maternal heritage, social and literary.² Woolf’s early works reveal not only her careful discipleship to the great male writers, but also her suppressed anxiety of authorship—a fear that she would not be capable of literary creation because she was a woman.³ In Woolf’s imagination, this conflicting identification was associated with the actual geographic split in her earliest years between those months spent in London (which she saw as embodying the male tradition) and those spent in the rural, maternal atmosphere of Talland House, Cornwall. Woolf’s adult response to this geographic and psychic split was to assimilate and then to revise the male literary and social heritage—and the city that had come to embody it. Drawing on what she called her “tea-table training,” Woolf first expressed herself in a disguised fashion in her writing, despite the constraints on her voice and values posed by male literary conventions. Later Woolf revised her portrait of the city, envisioning one whose literature and culture expressed feminist values. She was thus able to negotiate a path through her early conflicting identifications to the establishment of a mature voice and subject matter of her own.

The city was crucial to this act of artistic self-creation not only because of its personal significance in Woolf’s life but also—as two images from A Room of One’s Own indicate—because it embodied both the difficulties in a woman writer’s position in a patriarchal culture and the potential for their resolution in the articulation of previously unvoiced female experience. In Woolf’s celebrated work of feminist criticism the life of the fictitious poet Judith Shakespeare, an aspiring writer who flees provincial life for the stimulation of the city, becomes a parable of the woman writer’s experience in male-dominated culture. As Woolf explains to her imaginary listener, the novelist Mary Carmichael, the story of Judith Shakespeare’s London journey has important implications for contemporary women writers. Not only does it testify to the necessity of a supportive environment if a woman is to become a writer, but it also suggests the subject with which those new writers should concern themselves. Moreover, the contrast between the London of Judith Shakespeare and the modern city of Mary Carmichael anticipates, in a compressed fashion, the developing vision of the city expressed in Woolf’s oeuvre. The London she portrayed shifted from an environment hostile to women (like the city Judith Shakespeare encountered) to a later city like that experienced by Mary Carmichael, which at least held the possibility for the emergence of authentic female—even feminist—voices and values.

For Judith Shakespeare, the escape to London from the provinces ends not with fame and fortune as a playwright but with mockery, pregnancy, and suicide. Judith, like her brother, is drawn to London because she hopes to write; the city stands as the tantalizing incarnation of the cultural world she is “agog to see” (AROO, 49). Yet Judith’s struggle to create a place for herself as a writer in London fails because her “poet’s heart” is “caught and tangled in a woman’s body” (AROO, 50). Unlike William Shakespeare, who moves easily from Latin lessons in the country to acting in London, “practising his art on the boards, exercising his wits in the streets, and even getting access to the palace of the queen,” Judith Shakespeare finds no ready route to intellectual, professional, social, or political power. Instead, because she is a woman, Judith meets many barriers to the development of her “gift like her brother’s, for the tune of words” (AROO, 49). An inadequate education, the limiting and oppressive force of her father’s protective love, the heavy social restrictions placed on her both within and beyond the family—all these inner and outer obstacles to a writer’s life take their heaviest toll once she has made her way, alone, to London:

For it needs little skill in psychology to be sure that a highly gifted girl who had tried to use her gift for poetry would have been so thwarted and hindered by other people, so tortured and pulled asunder by her own contrary instincts, that she must have lost her health and sanity to a certainty. No girl could have walked to London and stood at a stage door and forced herself into the presence of actor-managers without doing herself a violence and suffering an anguish which may have been irrational. . . but were none the less inevitable. ... To have lived a free life in London in the sixteenth century would have meant for a woman who was a poet and a playwright a nervous stress and dilemma which might well have killed her. . . . That woman, then, who was born with a gift of poetry in the sixteenth century, was an unhappy woman, a woman at strife against herself. All the conditions of her life, all her own instincts, were hostile to the state of mind which is needed to set free whatever is in the brain. [AROO, 51-52]

Woolf’s tale of Judith Shakespeare vividly represents the impact of the urban environment, which can either nurture or annul a woman writer’s creativity. Forced to endure ridicule, exclusion, and finally sexual exploitation, Judith Shakespeare ironically ends her days as part of the London scene that scorned her, buried “at some cross-roads where the omnibuses now stop outside the Elephant and Casde” (AROO, 50). The city’s inhospitable treatment of Judith Shakespeare is significant, Woolf points out, because it reflects society at large. A woman had to be conscious of countless constraints imposed because of her gender, and to adopt the public role of writer was to be unchaste. Woolf develops her most celebrated argument from the tale of Judith Shakespeare: that a writer must be serenely unconscious of sex in order to create with genius, and that possession of money and a room of one’s own are essential for such a state of sexual unconsciousness.⁴ But while Woolf’s point is well known, what has been overlooked is the extent to which it is grounded in the urban environment, as the place in which Judith Shakespeare painfully encounters the cultural obstacles to her personal aspirations.

The city is equally important to the experience of the modern woman writer, as Woolf presents it in A Room of One’s Own. If London swallows up both Judith Shakespeare and her writer’s voice in the sixteenth century, in the twentieth it testifies to woman’s hitherto unexpressed and immensely powerful presence—or so Woolf explains to Judith’s descendant, the novelist Mary Carmichael. The task of the contemporary woman writer, Woolf asserts, is to put that female presence into words:

All these infinitely obscure lives remain to be recorded, I said, addressing Mary Carmichael as if she were present; and went on in thought through the streets of London feeling in imagination the pressure of dumbness, the accumulation of unrecorded life, whether from the women at the street corners with their arms akimbo, and the rings embedded in their fat swollen fingers, talking with a gesticulation like the swing of Shakespeare’s words; or from the violet-sellers and match-sellers and old crones stationed under doorways; or from drifting girls whose faces, like waves in sun and cloud, signal the coming of men and women and the flickering lights of shop windows. All that you will have to explore, I said to Mary Carmichael, holding your torch firm in your hand. [AROO, 93]

The women whose unspoken, unrecorded presence swells the London streets are the proper subject of the woman writer, Woolf asserts to Mary Carmichael.⁵ And, in turning her attention to those women, the contemporary writer is transforming her art as surely as Woolf intended to when, in “Mr. Bennett and Mrs. Brown,” she urged writers, “Let us not take it for granted that life exists more fully in what is commonly thought big than in what is commonly thought small” (CR 1,155). The city streets and shops, and the women who walk and work in them, are as rich a subject for the imagination as all the conventional masculine themes and settings of literary history:

[In] imagination I had gone into a shop; it was laid with black and white paving; it was hung, astonishingly beautifully, with coloured ribbons. Mary Carmichael might well have a look at that in passing, I thought, for it is a sight that would lend itself to a pen as fittingly as any snowy peak or rocky gorge in the Andes. And there is the girl behind the counter too—I would as soon have her true history as the hundred and fiftieth life of Napoleon or seventieth study of Keats and his use of Miltonic inversion which old Professor Z and his like are now inditing. [AROO, 94]

Contemporary London and the experiences of the city’s women are ideal subjects for the modern woman writer because the reality they embody has been passed over by literary tradition.⁶ Woolf’s attention to them in A Room of One’s Own typifies the revisionist impulse characteristic of her mature writing. From her early view of the city as male territory often hostile to women, Woolf deepened her perspective to include an appreciation of the city’s power to embody women’s experience. While Woolf’s portrait of the city shifted during her writing career, what did not change was the city’s central position in her art, as a context in which to explore the personal, cultural, and literary lives of women.

In Woolf’s development as a writer, the city served as a means of exploring and integrating various areas of experience. London had a specific set of personal meanings related to Woolf’s own memories, from the Kensington Gardens walks of her childhood to the urban rambles of her adulthood.⁷ She wrote of London’s personal importance to her throughout her life, in essays, letters, and her diary. From her longing for the city when forcibly exiled as an adolescent, to her adult despair at the ravaged face of London after the German bombings, Woolf’s writings reflect the city’s deep significance to her political analysis, the progress of her art, her hope for the future. Yet Woolf’s treatment of the city was more than mimesis: the city she wrote about, particularly in her essays and fiction, was shaped both by early experience and by adult intention. Consciously and unconsciously, Woolf drew on her childhood encounters with the city in order to organize both her later experiences and her writings.⁸ Late in her life she used her memories of the contrast between two London neighborhoods, experienced before she had published her first novel, to express the nature of “Old Bloomsbury,” that milieu which has drawn so much of its fame from her accomplishments as a writer:

At Molly’s command I have had to write a memoir of Old Bloomsbury—of Bloomsbury from 1904 to 1914. Naturally I see Bloomsbury only from my own angle—not from yours. For this I must ask you to make allowances. From my angle then, one approaches Bloomsbury through Hyde Park Gate—that little irregular cul-de-sac which lies next to Queen’s Gate and opposite to Kensington Gardens . . . though Hyde Park Gate seems now so distant from Bloomsbury, its shadow falls across it. 46 Gordon Square could never have meant what it did had not 22 Hyde Park Gate preceded it. [MB, 159-60]

Having been asked to write an intellectual and social history of “Old Bloomsbury” for the Memoir Club, Woolf instead responds, characteristically, with something closer to an evocation of the cityscape. She presents her literal “angle” on Bloomsbury—the physical contrast between the cramped space of 22 Hyde Park Gate and 46 Gordon Square—as a way of understanding the sources of the “Old Bloomsbury” sensibility, and she parodies the physical angle of vision one must adopt in order to see Bloomsbury (even in the imagination) from Kensington.

Woolf’s technique of presenting her memories concretely, in a spatial rather than a conceptual form, made it possible for her to accommodate both aspects of her strategy as a writer: assimilation and revision.⁹ Taking “angle” not as a mental perspective on a subject but as an actual physical relationship between objects or places in space, Woolf testified to the importance of what she called “scene making” to her writing. As she described this technique in “A Sketch of the Past,” it was her “natural way of marking the past,” “a means of summing up and making innumerable details visible in one concrete picture” (MB, 122).

Always a scene has arranged itself: representative; enduring . . . why do they survive undamaged year after year unless they are made of something comparatively permanent? Is this liability to scenes the origin of my writing impulse? .... Obviously I have developed the faculty, because, in all the writing I have done, I have almost always had to make a scene, either when I am writing about a person; I must find a representative scene in their lives; or when I am writing about a book, I must find their poem, novel. . . . [MB, 122]

The preservative impulse behind “scene making” is evident in this passage. However, Woolf’s description also hints at a less docile motive: “In all the writing I have done, I have almost always had to make a scene” (emphasis mine). Disruption of her inherited literary and social worlds was an inevitable part of Woolf’s struggle to make a place for herself in the literary tradition. The very act of expressing her own vision was disruptive to a world in which women’s experiences were stifled; she had to make a scene by the very act of writing in her authentic voice. Scenes were useful to Woolf, then, not only as ways of preserving a past she hated to lose, but also because they embodied the disruptive act of assuming her authorial voice. In fact, “scene making” exemplifies Woolf’s dual literary strategies, the acts of assimilation and of revision that were central to her writing career. Small wonder, then, that she speculated, “Is this liability to scenes the origin of my writing impulse?” (MB, 122).

Urban scenes offered particularly fertile possibilities to Woolf’s creative imagination because, in addition to their personal meaning, they held cultural significance; she could see embodied in them the social and cultural principles shaping her personal situation. To explore this cultural dimension of city scenes, I consider their symbolic meaning in Woolf’s works, where they reveal the relationship between the personal and the cultural, reflecting a truth both about the writer who created them and about the culture in which she lived. City scenes can be “read” in two directions: in to the personal and psychic life of their creator, which they express symbolically and by which they are to some degree shaped, and out to the culture they symbolize and reflect, and by which they are also influenced.¹⁰ For example, Leonore Davidoff has delineated the urban scene’s role in linking the personal and cultural dimensions of experience and has demonstrated that, for middle-class children in Victorian England, attitudes toward class and sexuality were “reflected in a spatial view of their world—a view which started with their own bodies, extended to the houses where they lived and eventually to their village, town, or city.”¹¹ The anus was associated with the back areas of the house, where servants dwelt; servants were consequently associated both with the “unclean” areas of the body and with the nether regions of the city, where refuse was handled and industrial production went on. By implication, one could deduce a child’s attitude toward class, sexuality, and gender from her or his vision of the city. Having been a late Victorian middle-class child, Woolf herself reflected the residue of this associative chain in her manuscript draft of “The Docks of London.” There the industrial areas of the city and its rubbish heaps are associated with female servants and with the working classes in general, although Woolf’s essay adds an implicit critique of the culture maintaining that association. Woolf’s street scenes both reveal the larger culture within which she wrote and offer her critique of that culture: so in Mrs. Dalloway the characters’ t...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• Illustrations
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Talland House and Hyde Park Gate
• 3 Achieving an Authentic Voice
• 4 Tradition and Revision: The Classic City Novel and Woolf’s Night and Day
• 5 The Carnival and Funeral Mrs. Dalloway’s London
• 6 Flush’s Journey from Imprisonment to Freedom
• 7 Woolf’s Developing Urban Vision in The years
• 8 “I Will Not Cease from Mental Fight”
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index