Tuesday, February 17, 2026

The Cult of the Bully


The Simpsons: Homer chokes Bart (2023)


Way, way back in history, virtually at the dawn of time, I remember hearing a lot of buzz about a brand new TV show about a subversive young punk named Bart. His catch-phrases: "Eat my shorts!," "Ay, caramba!," and "Don't have a cow, man!" were already legendary.

But then I watched the programme.

It didn't take long to work out that Bart's was a mere bit part - along with the saxophone-playing Lisa and the long-suffering Marge. There could be only one hero: the fat, stupid, bigoted paterfamilias Homer.

I couldn't really understand it at first. Why was he the star? The other characters were so much more interesting. Why should he be the sun they all revolved around?

But then I started to grasp it. In the bizarre travesty of "family-friendly" (i.e. thought-hostile) norms which had gradually accreted in American pop culture - first in Hollywood, then Network TV - the change-resistant, ideologically as well as racially conservative white man must ipso facto be at the centre of everything.

The workings of this machine are adroitly analysed in Slavoj Žižek's infamous "Pervert's Guide to Cinema", where he points out the "secret motif" in (for instance) all the key Spielberg movies: "the recovery of the father, of his authority."


All in the Family: Carroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker (1971-83)


Archie Bunker was one of the most successful archetypes of this hero with a thousand faces. Again, at the time, I couldn't work out why the butt of almost all the jokes in the show was gradually humanised and centralised until he, inexorably, assumed the mantle of the whole production (remember Archie Bunker's Place?).

It put me in mind of Toril Moi's celebrated comment (from her 1985 book Sexual/textual Politics) about the oppressed subject "internalising the standards of the aggressor." A character may start as a target for satire (like Archie Bunker's original, Alf Garnett, in the mordant British sit-com Till Death Us Do Part), but then the picture begins to adjust back to normal: and the unwise-at-times but basically loveable head-of-the-family model reasserts itself.

It also put me in mind of the infamous 2005 "Monkey Pay-per-View" study, where a group of Macaques turned out to be willing to trade cups of fruit-juice for a chance to look at pictures of attractive, celebrity monkeys. Male macaques wanting to look at sexy females seems normal enough - but monkeys of all genders paying out juice to gaze on the images of powerful males is, I fear, yet another manifestation of this thesis.


Colin Watson: Snobbery with Violence (1971)


Let's not pretend that this is an exclusively American phenomenon. Colin Watson's entertaining analysis of the classic English Crime Story gives some startling data about the kinds of heroes who flourished in Britain between the wars. Take "Sapper"'s protagonist Bulldog Drummond, for instance. Here are a few salient quotes from his merry adventures:
[To an adversary he addresses as "fungus face']: "Only a keen sense of public duty restrains me from plugging you where you sit, you ineffable swine."

[His idea of a hobby]: "Years ago we had an amusing little show rounding up Communists and other unwashed people of that type. We called ourselves the Black Gang, and it was a great sport while it lasted."

[His views on Russia, "ruled by its clique of homicidal, alien jews"]: "The most frightful gang of murderous-looking cut-throats I've ever seen (officers seem to have no control)."
In the last case, it appears to be their disrespect for officers which weighs more in the balance for Drummond than any other aspect of the Bolshevik creed.


'Sapper': Bulldog Drummond at Bay (1935)


Prominent leftist poet Cecil Day-Lewis (himself an accomplished detective story writer) referred to Bulldog Drummond as "that unspeakable Public School bully." But, as Colin Watson explains:
... fantasy heroes usually are bullies. They must win, and since their opponents seem to enjoy a monopoly of cunning, sheer physical advantage has to be invoked.
It rather puts one in mind of Goering's famous remark: "When I hear the word 'culture', I reach for my revolver."



There was an interesting case reported in the media the other day about a British woman who was "shot dead by her father after a heated argument about Donald Trump." As so often on these occasions, it's the line taken by the defence that's really jaw-dropping. The father, a certain Kris Harrison, explained that:
he owned a Glock 9mm handgun for “home defence” and had received no formal firearms training. He initially denied drinking that day but later admitted consuming a 500ml carton of wine in the morning, though he insisted alcohol did not influence his actions [my emphasis].
He further claimed that "he had a conversation about guns with his daughter and she asked to see the gun" - despite never having "discussed his gun ownership with him before."

The sequence of events appears to have been more-or-less as follows: the father got into an argument with his daughter, Lucy Harrison, over the merits of Donald Trump's dismissal without penalty after his conviction for falsifying business records to hide the payment of hush-money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

Lucy's boyfriend, Sam Littler, told the court that:
Harrison asked her father: “How would you feel if I was the girl in that situation and I’d been sexually assaulted?”
He said Kris replied that it would not upset him much because he had two other daughters living with him. Harrison then ran upstairs, visibly distressed.
Around half an hour later, Kris took his daughter’s hand and led her into his bedroom. Seconds later, a gunshot rang out.
Littler said he rushed in and found Harrison lying on the floor, while her father screamed incoherently.
Police later concluded she died from a gunshot wound to the heart fired at medium range.
And the father's explanation?
"As I lifted the gun to show her I suddenly heard a loud bang. I did not understand what had happened. Lucy immediately fell."
He told police who attended the scene: "We got it out to have a look and just as I picked it up it just went off."
Needless to say, "a grand jury in the US ... determined there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone in connection with Lucy Harrison's death."

I mean, don't get me wrong, it may have been an accident. The contention that she "asked to see the gun" sounds a little unlikely, though, given her well-documented abhorrence of firearms. Also, it seems an odd thing to want to do a few minutes before leaving for the airport to fly home.

Back in Britain, at the Cheshire Coroners' Court, matters panned out a little differently:
Coroner Jacqueline Devonish announced that she found Lucy Harrison died due to unlawful killing on the grounds of gross negligence manslaughter.
The coroner said: "To shoot her through the chest whilst she was standing would have required him to have been pointing the gun at his daughter, without checking for bullets, and pulling the trigger.
"I find these actions to be reckless."
Unfortunately these findings are from a coroner's court and not a criminal court, so have no actual effect on Kris Harrison, "described by the coroner as a functioning alcoholic."

So just what does a guy have to do to get indicted for manslaugher - let alone murder - in a court in Texas? Maybe if it had been the other way round, and the daughter was the Trump suppporter? I suspect Kris Harrison might well be looking at a bit of jailtime then ...


Mark Twain: Roughing It (1872)


Given these contradictory responses from two courts in two different countries ("divided by a common language," as George Bernard Shaw once put it), the question remains: Is there something in American culture which particularly lends itself to idealisation of the violent bully?

George Orwell certainly thought so. As he said in his classic 1944 essay "Raffles and Miss Blandish":
In America, both in life and fiction, the tendency to tolerate crime, even to admire the criminal so long as he is successful, is very much more marked [than in England]. It is, indeed, ultimately this attitude that has made it possible for crime to flourish upon so huge a scale. Books have been written about Al Capone that are hardly different in tone from the books written about Henry Ford, Stalin, Lord Northcliffe and all the rest of the “log cabin to White House” brigade. And switching back eighty years, one finds Mark Twain adopting much the same attitude towards the disgusting bandit Slade, hero of twenty-eight murders, and towards the Western desperadoes generally. They were successful, they “made good,” therefore he admired them.
This may be a little unfair to Mark Twain. Orwell may have read as blind admiration a description originally meant ironically. At this distance in time, it's hard to be sure. Certainly Twain had no time for that bully extraordinaire, the much-hyped "hero" of San Juan Hill, President Theodore Roosevelt.



Here are a few extracts from Matt Seybold's amusing article "The Nastiest Things Mark Twain Said About Teddy Roosevelt":
“[Roosevelt] is naively indifferent to the restraints of duty and even unaware of them; ready to kick the Constitution into the back yard whenever it gets in the way; and whenever he smells a vote, not only is he willing but eager to buy it, give extravagant rates for it and pay the bill not out of his own pocket or the party’s, but out of the nations, by cold pillage.” (February 16, 1905)

“The list of unpresidential things, things hitherto deemed impossible, wholly impossible, measurelessly impossible for a president of the United States to do — is much too long for invoicing here.” (May 29, 1907)

“Mr. Roosevelt is the most formidable disaster that has befallen the country since the Civil War – but the vast mass of the nation loves him, is frantically fond of him, even idolizes him. This is the simple truth. It sounds like a libel upon the intelligence of the human race, but it isn’t; there isn’t any way to libel the intelligence of the human race.” (September 13, 1907)

“Mr. Roosevelt is the Tom Sawyer of the political world of the twentieth century; always showing off; always hunting for a chance to show off; in his frenzied imagination the Great Republic is a vast Barnum circus with him for a clown and the whole world for audience; he would go to Halifax for half a chance to show off, and he would go to hell for a whole one.” (December 2, 1907)

“We have never had a President before who was destitute of self-respect and of respect for his high office; we have had no President before who was not a gentleman; we have had no President before who was intended for a butcher, a dive-keeper or a bully, and missed his mission.” (January 5, 1909)

“Roosevelt is the whole argument for and against, in his own person. He represents what the American gentleman ought not to be, and does it as clearly, intelligibly, and exhaustively as he represents what the American gentleman is. We are by long odds the most ill-mannered nation, civilized or savage, that exists on the planet to-day, and our President stands for us like a colossal monument visible from all the ends of the earth.” (April 3, 1906)

Ct Mirror: Trump and Teddy Roosevelt (2017)


Is it just me, or could one just as easily substitute another recent presidential surname for "Roosevelt" above?

Interestingly, Mark Twain's main theme here seems to be the President's vulgarity and lack of culture. The examples Twain analysed in more detail were mostly instances of "ungentlemanly" disrespect towards women - though he was also unsparing in his denunciations of the hypocrisy and perfidy shown by his countrymen in the brutal annexation of the Philippines.




RNZ: NZ's Coalition Goverment (2023)
l-to-r: Winston Peters, Christopher Luxon, David Seymour


In conclusion, I guess I'd like to see this set of interesting - to me, at any rate - data-points as a bit more than just another anti-Trump diatribe. Most of those try to present him as something egregious, unprecedented in American - possibly in world - culture.

On the contrary, I'd like to argue that the real problem is that he's so completely typical. Every run-of-the-mill male chauvinist has contributed a little to this particular conundrum. Even in little old New Zealand we have more than our fair share of such consummate asses.


Mystic River: "Daddy is a king" (2003)


I think that one of the most striking instances of the cult in full cry would have to be the bizarre monologue delivered by Laura Linney at the end of Clint Eastwood's 2003 film Mystic River, where she extols her murderous criminal of a husband, played by Sean Penn, because he is, in her eyes, "a king." The fact that he's just ordered the killing of an old schoolmate, whom he and his gang suspected (wrongly) of having raped Sean Penn's daughter, simply serves to redouble her blind adoration.

We hear the same poisonous slop every day from the grovelling fools surrounding the great Don - even though each of them knows beyond question that they'll be replaced in an instant the moment they cease to genuflect ... and start to question.

Is it his fault they're such spineless jellyfish? No, it's theirs - and ours.






Tuesday, February 10, 2026

Cavafy in English



It's hard to think of any foreign language writer who's had a greater influence on modern English poetry than the languid Alexandrian C. P. Cavafy.

His friend E. M. Forster described him as ""a Greek gentleman in a straw hat, standing absolutely motionless at a slight angle to the universe", and it's that awkward yet insouciant air, combined with the emotional anguish of his love life - not to mention his ever-present sense of the sheer weight of three thousand turbulent years of Greek history - which fascinate us still.


Leonid Pasternak: Rilke in Moscow (1928)


Who could you compare him with? There's the deracinated Austrian-Czech Rainer Maria Rilke, of course. His famous sonnet about the "Archaic Torso of Apollo" with its self-accusatory conclusion "Du mußt dein Leben ändern" [You must change your life] is probably more familiar to readers now than "The Panther", even - let alone the Duino Elegies (1923). It's hard to imagine twentieth-century poetry without him.


Pessoa sinking a dram (Lisbon, 1929)


Then, of course, there's Fernando Pessoa. Fascinating though I find the man, I'd have to admit that few of his actual poems - that is, if he can be said to have written many without a convenient mask to colour-code their content in advance - interest me as much as the concepts he embodies: above all, the idea of the heteronymn.

Of course there are lots of other twentieth-century modernist poets most of us know by name, at least, if not in detail: Guillaume Apollinaire, Vladimir Mayakovsky, Czesław Miłosz, Eugenio Montale, Pablo Neruda - not to mention my main man Paul Celan.

All of the above have exerted a strong influence on writers in English, but whether that extends very far past the mavens of high culture is debatable. Their respective statuses in their own countries and literatures is another matter entirely: that's far too complex to try to analyse here.


Max Beckmann: Paris Society (1931)





Penguin Classics: Poets in Translation (1996-2005)


At its inception, some thirty years ago, the idea of the Penguin Poets in Translation series appears to have been that each volume should chart the particular idiosyncratic forms one classic poet's reputation and work have taken over time in English literary culture. Here's the full list:
  1. Homer in English. Ed. George Steiner & Aminadav Dykman (1996)
  2. Horace in English. Ed. D. S. Carne-Ross & Kenneth Haynes (1996)
  3. Martial in English. Ed. John P. Sullivan & Anthony J. Boyle (1996)
  4. The Psalms in English. Ed. Donald Davie (1996)
  5. Virgil in English. Ed. K. W. Gransden (1996)
  6. Baudelaire in English. Ed. Carol Clark & Robert Sykes (1998)
  7. Ovid in English. Ed. Christopher Martin (1998)
  8. Seneca in English. Ed. Don Share (1998)
  9. Catullus in English. Ed. Julia Haig Gaisser (2001)
  10. Juvenal in English. Ed. Martin M. Winkler (2001)
  11. Dante in English. Ed. Eric Griffiths & Matthew Reynolds (2005)
  12. Petrarch in English. Ed. Thomas P. Roche (2005)
A projected thirteenth volume, Rilke in English, to be edited by German-English poet and translator Michael Hofmann, seems never to have appeared.

As you can see, all the poets included - with the partial exception of Baudelaire - have many centuries of interpretation and translation to draw on. Rilke, by contrast, is a comparative newcomer to world poetry. The publishers may have thought it doubtful that enough worthwhile material could be found to compile a volume commensurate with those devoted to, say, Homer or Dante.


Harry Thomas, ed.: Montale in English (2005)


But that doesn't seem to have deterred the editor of Montale in English (2005), whose substantial selection of translations from the Nobel Prize-winning Italian poet - which appeared originally as Eugenio Montale: Poems (Penguin Modern Classics, 2002) - has since been supplemented by New Zealand-based Italian poet and translator Marco Sonzogni's Corno inglese: An Anthology of Eugenio Montale's Poetry in English Translation (2009), a volume to which I myself was happy to contribute.


Marco Sonzogni, ed.: Corno Inglese (2009)


As a tribute to Penguin's original concept, I've decided it might be interesting to compile a complementary list of more modern poets whose influence in English has been particularly striking. Here are my 12 proposed candidates:
  1. Arthur Rimbaud (1854-1891) [French]
  2. C. P. Cavafy (1863-1933) [Greek]
  3. Rainer Maria Rilke (1875-1926) [German]
  4. Guillaume Apollinaire (1880-1918) [French]
  5. Fernando Pessoa (1888-1935) [Portuguese]
  6. Anna Akhmatova (1889-1966) [Russian]
  7. Osip Mandelstam (1891-1938) [Russian]
  8. Eugenio Montale (1896-1981) [Italian]
  9. Federico García Lorca (1898-1938) [Spanish]
  10. Salvatore Quasimodo (1901-1968) [Italian]
  11. Pablo Neruda (1904-1973) [Spanish]
  12. Paul Celan (1920-1970) [German]
I've confined it mainly to poets in whom I myself take a strong interest. I've also stuck to a kind of linguistic quota system: two French poets, two German poets, two Italian poets, two Russian poets, two Spanish poets, along with a Greek poet and a Portuguese poet.

There are, of course, innumerable others I could have included, and I'm only too conscious of the crippling gender imbalance in this list. I thought it would be hypocritical to include any writers whom I myself find uncongenial, though, or whose work I don't know well enough to discuss in detail (hence no Seferis, no Ungaretti, no Valéry, no Mayakovsky ...)

Over the years, I've attempted versions of poems by some - by no means all - of the writers above: occasionally, recklessly, without any knowledge of the language in question (Greek, for instance, in Cavafy's case). I wouldn't claim to understand any of them in any depth; but I "think continually" about all of them (to borrow a phrase from Stephen Spender). They've enriched my life; I'd like to try to explain why.

In any case, that's the project. We'll just have to see how far I get with it after this, the first instalment in the series. There'll only need to be eleven posts, though, as I've decided to count the work done already on Montale in English by Harry Thomas in America and Marco Sonzogni in New Zealand as quite enough said on that particular subject.


Eugenio Montale: Poems. Ed. Harry Thomas (2002)





Lawrence Durrell: Justine (1957)


To come back to Cavafy, I'm forced to admit that my own first introduction to his poetry was probably in Lawrence Durrell's Justine, the first part of his Alexandria Quartet. Durrell's constant references to the "old poet of the city" - not to mention his inclusion of his own free translations of "The City" and "The God Abandons Antony" - were enough to awaken a lot of us to the existence of this hitherto rather obscure poet.

There are versions of another four Cavafy poems at the end of Clea, the final volume in the series, but - while striking in themselves - they mainly serve to accentuate the impact already made by the two included in Justine. They are, in order, "The Afternoon Sun," "Far Away," "One of Their Gods," and "Che fece ... il gran rifiuto" [he who made ... the great refusal]. The title of the last poem makes reference to Dante's characterisation of one of the souls - probably Pope Celestine V, the first to lay down the Papacy on account of old age; also the last, until Benedict XVI's resignation in 2013 - trapped aimlessly in front of Hell's Gate.


E. M. Forster: Alexandria: A History and A Guide (1922)


Strangely enough, it was actually in English that Cavafy made his first substantive claim on the world's attention. Bloomsbury insider E. M. Forster spent much of the First World War stationed in Alexandria as a Red Cross volunteer. When he wasn't agonising over recalcitrant drafts of his novel A Passage to India, he passed the time compiling a guidebook to the city.

In the process, he met Cavafy. And so "The God Abandons Antony," in a translation by George Valassapoulo, is situated strategically at the end of the historical section of Forster's book. He went on to publish a more substantial essay about Cavafy a year later, in the set of impressionistic travel pieces Pharos and Pharillon.


E. M. Forster: Pharos and Pharillon (1923)


Cavafy died in 1933. The first major Greek edition of his collected poems appeared in Alexandria two years later, but it probably wasn't until John Mavrogordato's pioneering English translation of the bulk of his work came out from the Hogarth Press in 1951 that he really began to attract attention.

Within a few years of the publication of Durrell's Justine, the first (so-called) "complete" English translation of his poems was published in London and New York. Rae Dalven's version remains smooth and serviceable, but it was probably the fact that the book included an introduction by W. H. Auden that really created waves. "Atlantis," Auden's adaptation of Cavafy's famous poem "Ithaka," was among the first poems he wrote on his arrival in America in 1939.

After that, as you can see from the bibliography included below, the floodgates were open. If you knew anything at all about world poetry, it was impossible to be unaware of Cavafy's work. Canadian singer / songwriter Leonard Cohen
... transformed Cavafy's poem "The God Abandons Antony", based on Mark Antony's loss of the city of Alexandria and his empire, into "Alexandra Leaving", a song around lost love.
It's also intriguing to see in that Wikipedia list a reference to Greek director Stelios Haralambopoulos's film The Night Fernando Pessoa Met Constantine Cavafy, which posits an imaginary encounter between these two great flâneurs on a transatlantic ocean liner on the 21st of October, 1929, a few days before the Wall Street crash ...






J. M. Coetzee: Waiting for the Barbarians (1980)


Nobel prize-winning novelist J. M. Coetzee's Waiting for the Barbarians takes its name from a Cavafy poem. Along with "The God Abandons Antony" and "Ithaka," it's unquestionably one of his most easily recognisable - and influential - works.

I thought it might be interesting to compare a few different translations of it. What is it about this particular poem which has focussed so many writers' attention, over so many years?




K. P. Kavaphē: Poiēmata (1935)


    Περιμένοντας τους Bαρβάρους
    - Κωνσταντίνος Πέτρου Καβάφης (1898 / 1904)

    — Τι περιμένουμε στην αγορά συναθροισμένοι;
    
    Είναι οι βάρβαροι να φθάσουν σήμερα.
    
    — Γιατί μέσα στην Σύγκλητο μια τέτοια απραξία;
    Τι κάθοντ’ οι Συγκλητικοί και δεν νομοθετούνε;
    
    Γιατί οι βάρβαροι θα φθάσουν σήμερα.
    Τι νόμους πια θα κάμουν οι Συγκλητικοί;
    Οι βάρβαροι σαν έλθουν θα νομοθετήσουν.
    
    — Γιατί ο αυτοκράτωρ μας τόσο πρωί σηκώθη,
    και κάθεται στης πόλεως την πιο μεγάλη πύλη
    στον θρόνο επάνω, επίσημος, φορώντας την κορώνα;
    
    Γιατί οι βάρβαροι θα φθάσουν σήμερα.
    Κι ο αυτοκράτωρ περιμένει να δεχθεί
    τον αρχηγό τους. Μάλιστα ετοίμασε
    για να τον δώσει μια περγαμηνή. Εκεί
    τον έγραψε τίτλους πολλούς κι ονόματα.
    
    — Γιατί οι δυο μας ύπατοι κ’ οι πραίτορες εβγήκαν
    σήμερα με τες κόκκινες, τες κεντημένες τόγες·
    γιατί βραχιόλια φόρεσαν με τόσους αμεθύστους,
    και δαχτυλίδια με λαμπρά, γυαλιστερά σμαράγδια·
    γιατί να πιάσουν σήμερα πολύτιμα μπαστούνια
    μ’ ασήμια και μαλάματα έκτακτα σκαλιγμένα;
    
    Γιατί οι βάρβαροι θα φθάσουν σήμερα·
    και τέτοια πράγματα θαμπώνουν τους βαρβάρους.
    
    — Γιατί κ’ οι άξιοι ρήτορες δεν έρχονται σαν πάντα
    να βγάλουνε τους λόγους τους, να πούνε τα δικά τους;
    
    Γιατί οι βάρβαροι θα φθάσουν σήμερα·
    κι αυτοί βαρυούντ’ ευφράδειες και δημηγορίες.
    
    — Γιατί ν’ αρχίσει μονομιάς αυτή η ανησυχία
    κ’ η σύγχυσις. (Τα πρόσωπα τι σοβαρά που εγίναν).
    Γιατί αδειάζουν γρήγορα οι δρόμοι κ’ η πλατέες,
    κι όλοι γυρνούν στα σπίτια τους πολύ συλλογισμένοι;
    
    Γιατί ενύχτωσε κ’ οι βάρβαροι δεν ήλθαν.
    Και μερικοί έφθασαν απ’ τα σύνορα,
    και είπανε πως βάρβαροι πια δεν υπάρχουν.
    
    __
    
    Και τώρα τι θα γένουμε χωρίς βαρβάρους.
    Οι άνθρωποι αυτοί ήσαν μια κάποια λύσις.




    John Mavrogordato: The Poems of C. P. Cavafy (1951)


  1. Waiting for the Barbarians

  2. - John Mavrogordato (1951)

    What are we waiting for all crowded in the forum?
        The Barbarians are to arrive today.
    Within the Senate-house why is there such inaction?
    The Senators making no laws what are they sitting there for?
        Because the Barbarians arrive today.
        What laws now should the Senators be making?
        When the Barbarians come they'll make the laws.
    
    Why did our Emperor get up so early in the morning?
    And at the greatest city gate why is he sitting there now,
    Upon his throne, officially, why is he wearing his crown?
        Because the Barbarians arrive today.
        The emperor is waiting to receive
        Their Leader. And in fact he has prepared
        To give him an address. On it he has
        written him down all sorts of names and titles.
    
    Why have our two Consuls gone out, both of them, and the Praetors
    Today with their red togas on , with their embroidered togas?
    Why are they wearing bracelets, and all those amethysts too,
    And all those rings on their fingers with splendid flashing emeralds?
    Why should they be carrying today their precious walkingsticks,
    With silver knobs and golden tops so wonderfully carved?
        Because the Barbarians will arrive today;
        Things of this sort dazzle the Barbarians.
    
    And why are the fine orators not come here as usual
    To get their speeches off, to say what they have to say?
        Because the Barbarians will be here today;
        And they are bored with eloquence and speechmaking.
    
    Why should this uneasiness begin all of a sudden?
    And confusion. How serious people's faces have become.
    Why are all the streets and squares emptying so quickly,
    and everybody returning home again so full of thought?
        Because night has fallen and the Barbarians have not come.
        And some people have arrived from the frontier;
        They said there are no Barbarians any more.
    
        And now what will become of us without Barbarians? -
        Those people were some sort of a solution.




    Rae Dalven: The Complete Poems of C. P. Cavafy (1961)


  3. Expecting the Barbarians

  4. - Rae Dalven (1961)

    What are we waiting for, assembled in the public square?
    
    The barbarians are to arrive today.
    
    Why such inaction in the Senate?
    Why do the Senators sit and pass no laws?
    
    Because the barbarians are to arrive today.
    What further laws can the Senators pass?
    When the barbarians come they will make the laws.
    
    Why did our emperor wake up so early,
    and sits at the principal gate of the city,
    on the throne, in state, wearing his crown?
    
    Because the barbarians are to arrive today
    and the emperor waits to receive 
    their chief. Indeed he has prepared
    to give him a scroll. Therein he engraved
    many titles and names of honor.
    
    Why have our two consuls and the praetors come out
    today in their red, embroidered togas;
    Why do they wear amethyst-studded bracelets,
    and rings with brilliant, glittering emeralds;
    Why are they carrying costly canes today,
    superbly carved with silver and gold?
    
    Because the barbarians are to arrive today,
    and such things dazzle the barbarians.
    
    Why don’t the worthy orators come as usual
    to make their speeches, to have their say?
    
    Because the barbarians are to arrive today;
    and they get bored with eloquence and orations.
    
    Why this sudden unrest and confusion?
    (How solemn their faces have become.)
    Why are the streets and squares clearing quickly,
    and all return to their homes, so deep in thought?
    
    Because night is here but the barbarians have not come.
    Some people arrived from the frontiers,
    and they said that there are no longer any barbarians.
    
    And now what shall become of us without any barbarians?
    Those people were a kind of solution.




    Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard: C. P. Cavafy: Collected Poems (1990)


  5. Waiting for the Barbarians

  6. - Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard (1975)

    What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?
    
          The barbarians are due here today.
    
    
    Why isn’t anything going on in the senate?
    Why are the senators sitting there without legislating?
    
          Because the barbarians are coming today.
          What’s the point of senators making laws now?
          Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating.
    
    
    Why did our emperor get up so early,
    and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate,
    in state, wearing the crown?
    
          Because the barbarians are coming today
          and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader.
          He’s even got a scroll to give him,
          loaded with titles, with imposing names.
    
    
    Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
    wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
    Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
    rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
    Why are they carrying elegant canes
    beautifully worked in silver and gold?
    
          Because the barbarians are coming today
          and things like that dazzle the barbarians.
    
    
    Why don’t our distinguished orators turn up as usual
    to make their speeches, say what they have to say?
    
          Because the barbarians are coming today
          and they’re bored by rhetoric and public speaking.
    
    
    Why this sudden bewilderment, this confusion?
    (How serious people’s faces have become.)
    Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
    everyone going home lost in thought?
    
          Because night has fallen and the barbarians haven't come.
          And some of our men just in from the border say
          there are no barbarians any longer.
    
    
    Now what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
    Those people were a kind of solution.




    Evangelos Sachperoglou: The Collected Poems: with Parallel Greek text (2007)


  7. Waiting for the Barbarians

  8. - Evangelos Sachperoglou (2007)

    – What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?
    The barbarians are to arrive today.
    
    – Why then such inactivity in the Senate?
    Why do the Senators sit back and do not legislate?
    
    Because the barbarians will arrive today.
    What sort of laws now can Senators enact?
    When the barbarians come, they’ll do the legislating.
    
    – Why is our emperor up so early,
    and seated at the grandest gate of our city, upon the throne,
    in state, wearing the crown?
    
    Because the barbarians will arrive today.
    And the emperor expects to receive their leader.
    He has even prepared to present him
    with a parchment scroll where he has
    invested him with many names and titles.
    
    – Why have our two consuls and the praetors come out
    today in their purple, embroidered togas;
    why did they put on bracelets studded with amethysts,
    and rings with resplendent, glittering emeralds;
    why are they carrying today precious staves
    beautifully worked in gold and silver?
    
    Because the barbarians will arrive today
    and such things dazzle the barbarians.
    
    – And why don’t our distinguished orators come out as usual
    to give their speeches, say what they have to say?
    
    Because the barbarians will arrive today;
    and they are bored by rhetoric and public speeches.
    
    – Why this sudden commotion, this confusion?
    (How solemn people’s faces have become.)
    Why are the streets and the squares emptying so quickly,
    and everyone is returning home lost in thought?
    
    Because night has fallen and the barbarians have not come.
    And some of our men have arrived from the frontiers,
    and say that there are no barbarians anymore.
    
    — And now, what will become of us without barbarians?
    Those people were a kind of solution.




    Daniel Mendelsohn: C. P. Cavafy: Complete Poems (2012)


  9. Waiting for the Barbarians

  10. - Daniel Mendelsohn (2009)

    - What is it that we are waiting for, gathered in the square?
    
          The barbarians are supposed to arrive today.
    
    
    - Why is there such great idleness inside the Senate house?
      Why are the Senators sitting there, without passing any laws?
    
          Because the barbarians will arrive today.
          Why should the Senators still be making laws?
          The barbarians, when they come, will legislate.
    
    
    - Why is it that our Emperor awoke so early today,
      and has taken his position oat the greatest of the city’s gates
      seated on his throne, in solemn state, wearing the crown?
    
          Because the barbarians will arrive today.
          And the emperor is waiting to receive 
          their leader. Indeed he is prepared
          to present him with a parchment scroll. In it
          he's conferred on him many titles and honorifics.
    
    
    - Why have our consuls and our praetors come outside today
      wearing their scarlet togas with their rich embroidery,
      Why have they donned their armlets with all their amethysts,
      and rings with their magnificent, glistening emeralds;
      Why should they be carrying such precious staves today,
      maces chased exquisitely with silver and with gold?
    
          Because the barbarians will arrive today;
          and things like that bedazzle the barbarians.
    
    
    - Why do our worthy orators not come today as usual
     to deliver their addresses, each to say his piece?
    
          Because the barbarians will arrive today;
          and they’re bored by eloquence and public speaking.
    
    
    - Why has this uneasiness arisen all at once,
      and this confusion? (How serious the faces have become.)
      Why is it that the streets and squares are emptying so quickly,
      and everyone's returning home in such deep contemplation?
    
          Because night has fallen and the barbarians haven't come.
          And some people have arrived from the borderlands,
          and said there are no barbarians anymore.
    
    
    And now what’s to become of us without barbarians.
    Those people were a solution of a sort.



  11. Waiting for the Barbarians

  12. - Björn Thegeby (2018)

    – What are we waiting for here in the square?
    
    It’s the barbarians who will arrive today.
    
    – Why is there in the Senate such torpor?
    How do the Senators sit and not pass laws?
    
    Because the barbarians will arrive today.
    What laws will the Senators adopt now?
    The barbarians when they come will adopt laws.
    
    – Why does our Emperor rise this early,
    and sit by the largest gate in the city
    upon the throne, in splendour, wearing the crown?
    
    Because the barbarians will arrive today.
    And the Emperor is waiting to receive
    their leader. He is ready
    to give him a parchment. On which
    he wrote many titles and honours.
    
    – Why did our two consuls and praetors go out
    today with their red, their embroidered togas;
    why did they wear bracelets with so many amethysts,
    and rings with sparkling, more sparkling emeralds;
    Why today do they clutch precious staffs
    exquisitely carved with silver and gold?
    
    Because the barbarians will arrive today;
    and such things impress the barbarians.
    
    – Why the worthy orators do not come as before
    to deliver their speeches, to say their own words?
    
    Because the barbarians will arrive today;
    and speeches and rethoric bore them.
    
    – Why this sudden concern
    and unease. (How serious the faces have become).
    Why are the streets and the squares emptying fast,
    and everyone goes to their homes very thoughtful?
    
    Because night came and the barbarians did not arrive.
    And some arrived from the border,
    and told us barbarians no longer exist.
    
    __
    
    And now what will happen without barbarians.
    Those people were a sort of solution.



  13. Waiting for the Barbarians

  14. - Evan Jones (2020)

    – Why are we waiting in the agora?
    
         Because the barbarians arrive today.
    
    – Why is there such uncertainty in the Senate?
    Why do the Senators sit there and not legislate?
    
         Because the barbarians arrive today.
         What laws can our Senators enact now?
         The barbarians will legislate when they arrive.
    
    – Why has our emperor awoken so early,
    and seated himself before the city’s main gate,
    on his throne, solemn, wearing his crown?
    
         Because the barbarians arrive today
         and the emperor wants to greet
         their leader. As is the custom, he will
         present him with a parchment.
         Many titles and names are written on it.
    
    – Why have our two consuls and the praetors chosen
    today to don their red, embroidered togas?
    Why are they wearing bracelets adorned with amethyst
    and rings with shiny, glistening emeralds?
    Why do they carry expensive walking sticks
    gilded and inlaid with silver?
    
         Because the barbarians arrive today,
         and such things impress barbarians.
    
    – And why have our outspoken orators not come as always
    to spout their words, to have their say?
    
         Because the barbarians arrive today,
         and eloquence and speeches bore them.
    
    – Where has this anxiousness and confusion come from
    all of a sudden? Look at the haunted faces.
    Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly
    and everyone returning to their homes so worried?
    
         Because night fell and the barbarians never arrived.
         Some men travelled to the border region,
         and reported that the barbarians no longer exist.
    
                ——
    
    Now what will we do without the barbarians?
    They were a sort of solution for us.



Thomas Cole: The Course of Empire: Destruction (1801)


So there we are: seven English versions of the same Greek poem, published over a period of some seventy years.

Some are definitely more wordy than others. Daniel Mendelsohn's is particularly egregious in that respect. When you have to type them out one after another, you begin to notice the redundant words and clumsy periphrases some of the translators employ. But they're all recognisably the same poem.

John Mavrogordato's version puts me in mind of W. H. Auden's 1930s ballad "O What Is That Sound:
O what is that sound which so thrills the ear
Down in the valley drumming, drumming?
Only the scarlet soldiers, dear,
The soldiers coming.
Compare that with the opening of Mavrogordato's poem:
What are we waiting for all crowded in the forum?
The Barbarians are to arrive today.
Within the Senate-house why is there such inaction?
The Senators making no laws what are they sitting there for?
Because the Barbarians arrive today.
There's the same question / response pattern within the stanzas, and Mavrogardato even runs on the syntax of some of his lines to give a similar breathless intensity: "The Senators making no laws what are they sitting there for?"

Rae Dalven's translation, by contrast, has a simple straightforwardness to it. She ignores the dashes and spacing of the original, and lays it all out as directly as possible. She's also the only one who dared to change the title, though it's hard to see "Expecting the Barbarians" as any improvement over "Waiting for the Barbarians."

The joint translation by Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard stood as the standard version for many years. They're less bold than Mavrogordato, and more literal than Rae Dalven. Their version, though a little stilted in parts, combines an accurate knowledge of the original with a sound poetic ear for English idiom. They generally provide a good yardstick to measure other versions against.

Evangelos Sachperoglou's 2007 translation, for instance, has better idiomatic phrasing in parts than any of his predecessors. But as a whole, it doesn't offer much they don't. It's certainly better than Mendelsohn's. The only reason for buying the latter, in fact, is because it includes a lot of material missing from other editions. This is important for completists, but unfortunately the poorly worded translations make his version only really useful as a crib.

And what of our last two translations, by (respectively) Björn Thegeby and Evan Jones? Thegeby's is not particularly well worded:
– What are we waiting for here in the square?

It’s the barbarians who will arrive today.

– Why is there in the Senate such torpor?
How do the Senators sit and not pass laws?
That's by far the poorest opening to any of the translations. Jones, by contrast, does a solid, workmanlike job. Some of his phrasing has the effect of undermining the tension of the situation, however:
What laws can our Senators enact now?
The barbarians will legislate when they arrive.
That's not nearly as effective as Sachperoglou's ominous: "When the barbarians come, they’ll do the legislating." But then, Mavrogordato's: "When the Barbarians come they'll make the laws" is probably even better. Dalven must have thought so. She ended up making only one small change to his line:
When the barbarians come they will make the laws.
So I guess the real question is whether or not it's really worth while making such basically similar versions of the same canonical poem? There's nothing really wrong with the later versions (though I do have certain doubts about Mendelsohn's and Thegeby's), but do they need to exist?

The rather maverick liberties of Mavrogordato's translation were softened and corrected by Dalven's blander and simpler version. Keeley and Sherrard revisited the entire question of whether a more accurate reflection of Cavafy's original could still be combined with a certain poetic grace: very successfully, in most readers' opinion.

After that, though, why not translate it into Scots? or reimagine the whole thing in some more radical way? I don't see the point of compiling such transcripts unless someone arises who has a superlative gift for accurate phrasing: "What oft was thought, but ne'er so well express'd," as Pope puts it.

Cribs will always have their place - which I suppose is one strong argument in favour of Mendelsohn's wordy but thorough version.

But I'm afraid that I refuse to see Cavafy as just one more dead writer with nothing important left to say. If anything, his world-weary cynicism seems more appropriate than ever in the final paroxysms of yet another bumptious imperial world order.


Doctors without Borders: Gaza Death Trap (2024)





C. P. Cavafy (1914-1996)

Konstantinos Petrou Kavafis
[Constantine P. Cavafy]

(1863-1933)

Books I own are marked in bold:
    Text:

  1. Ποιήματα [Poiēmata] (1935)

  2. Translations:

  3. Poems by C. P. Cavafy. Trans. John Mavrogordato (1951)
    • Poems. Trans. John Mavrogordato. Introduction by Rex Warner. 1951. London: Chatto & Windus, 1974.
  4. The Complete Poems of Cavafy. Trans. Rae Dalven. Introduction by W. H. Auden (1961)
    • The Complete Poems of Cavafy. Trans. Rae Dalven. Introduction by W. H. Auden. London: The Hogarth Press, 1961.
  5. The Greek Poems of C.P. Cavafy. Trans. Memas Kolaitis. 2 vols (1989)
  6. Passions and Ancient Days - 21 New Poems. Trans. Edmund Keeley & George Savidis (1972)
  7. Collected Poems. Trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard. Ed. George Savidis (1975)
    • Collected Poems: Bilingual Edition. Trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard. Ed. George Savidis. London: The Hogarth Press, 1975.
    • Collected Poems. Trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard. Ed. George Savidis. 1975. London: Chatto & Windus, 1979.
  8. Poems by Constantine Cavafy. Trans. George Khairallah (1979)
  9. Collected Poems. Trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard. Ed. George Savidis. Rev. ed. (1992)
  10. Selected Poems of C. P. Cavafy. Trans. Desmond O'Grady (1998)
  11. Before Time Could Change Them: The Complete Poems of Constantine P. Cavafy. Trans. Theoharis C. Theoharis. Foreword by Gore Vidal (2001)
  12. Poems by C. P. Cavafy. Trans. J. C. Cavafy (2003)
  13. I've Gazed So Much. Trans. George Economou (2003)
  14. The Canon. Trans. Stratis Haviaras. Foreword by Seamus Heaney (2004)
  15. The Collected Poems. Trans. Evangelos Sachperoglou. Ed. Anthony Hirst. Introduction by Peter Mackridge (2007)
    • The Collected Poems. Trans. Evangelos Sachperoglou. Ed. Anthony Hirst. Introduction by Peter Mackridge. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
  16. The Collected Poems of C. P. Cavafy: A New Translation. Trans. Aliki Barnstone. Introduction by Gerald Stern (2007)
  17. Selected Poems. Trans. Avi Sharon (2008)
  18. Cavafy: 166 Poems. Trans. Alan L Boegehold (2008)
  19. Collected Poems. Trans. Daniel Mendelsohn (2009)
    • Collected Poems. Trans. Daniel Mendelsohn. 2009. A Borzoi Book. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010.
  20. The Unfinished Poems. Trans. Daniel Mendelsohn (2009)
    • The Unfinished Poems: The First English Translation. Based on the Greek Edition of Renata Lavagnini. Trans. Daniel Mendelsohn. A Borzoi Book. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009.
  21. Selected Prose Works. Ed. & trans. Peter Jeffreys (2010)
  22. Poems: The Canon. Trans. John Chioles. Ed. Dimitrios Yatromanolakis (2011)
  23. Selected Poems. Trans. David Connolly (2013)
  24. Complete Poems. Trans. Daniel Mendelsohn (2013)
    • Complete Poems. Trans. Daniel Mendelsohn. 2009 & 2012. Harper Press. London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2013.
  25. Clearing the Ground: C. P. Cavafy, Poetry and Prose, 1902-1911. Trans. Martin McKinsey (2015)
  26. The Barbarians Arrive Today: Poems & Prose. A Cavafy Reader. Trans. Evan Jones (2020)
    Selections:

  27. Lawrence Durrell. Justine (1957)
    • The Alexandria Quartet: Justine; Balthazar; Mountolive: Clea. 1957, 1958, 1958, 1960. London: Faber, 1962.
  28. Six Poets of Modern Greece. Trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard (1960)
    • Six Poets of Modern Greece: Cavafy; Sikelianos; Seferis; Antoniou; Elytis; Gatsos. Trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard. London: Thames and Hudson, 1960.
  29. Four Greek Poets. Trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard (1966)
    • Four Greek Poets: C. P. Cavafy / Odysseus Elytis / Nikos Gatsos / George Seferis: Selected Poems. Trans. Edmund Keeley & Philip Sherrard. Penguin Modern European Poets. 1966. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970.
  30. The Penguin Book of Greek Verse. Ed. Constantine A. Trypanis (1971)
    • The Penguin Book of Greek Verse: With Plain Prose Translations of Every Poem. Ed. Constantine A. Trypanis. The Penguin Poets. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971.
  31. Modern Greek Poetry. Ed. Kimon Friar (1973)
  32. Memas Kolaitis. Cavafy as I knew him (1980)
  33. Jack Ross. City of Strange Brunettes (1998)
    • "The God Abandons Antony." In City of Strange Brunettes. Birkenhead, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand: The Pohutukawa Press, 1998.
  34. James Merrill. Collected Poems (2002)
    • Collected Poems. Ed. J. D. McClatchy & Stephen Yenser. 2001. New York: Alfred a. Knopf, 2002.
  35. Jack Ross. The Imaginary Museum of Atlantis (2006)
    • "Ithaka." In The Imaginary Museum of Atlantis. R.E.M. Trilogy 2. ISBN 0-9582586-8-6. Auckland: Titus Books, 2006.
  36. David Ferry. Bewilderment (2012)
  37. Don Paterson. Landing Light (2003)
  38. Derek Mahon. Adaptations (2006)
  39. A. E. Stallings. Hapax (2006)
  40. Don Paterson. Rain (2009)
  41. John Ash. In the Wake of the Day (2010)
  42. David Harsent. Night (2011)

  43. Secondary:

  44. Forster, E. M. Alexandria: A History and Guide. 1922. Ed. Michael Haag. Introduction by Lawrence Durrell. 1982. London: Michael Haag Limited, 1986.
  45. Forster, E. M. Pharos and Pharillon. 1923. Berkeley: Creative Arts Books, 1980.
  46. Liddell, Robert. Cavafy: A Critical Biography. 1974. Introduction by Peter Mackridge. London: Duckworth, 2000.


Robert Liddell: Cavafy: A Critical Biography (1976)





William Roberts: The Vorticists at the Restaurant de la Tour Eiffel (1961-62)

Modern Poets in English

  1. Arthur Rimbaud (1854-1891)
  2. C. P. Cavafy (1863-1933)
  3. Rainer Maria Rilke (1875-1926)
  4. Guillaume Apollinaire (1880-1918)
  5. Fernando Pessoa (1888-1935)
  6. Anna Akhmatova (1889-1966)
  7. Osip Mandelstam (1891-1938)
  8. Eugenio Montale (1896-1981)
  9. Federico García Lorca (1898-1938)
  10. Salvatore Quasimodo (1901-1968)
  11. Pablo Neruda (1904-1973)
  12. Paul Celan (1920-1970)



Wednesday, February 04, 2026

Favourite Children's Authors: T. H. White


Sylvia Townsend Warner: T. H. White: A Biography (1967)


The blurb for a recent reprint of Sylvia Townsend Warner's biography of her old friend Tim White claims that:
Warner treats White's repressed sexual predilections with humane understanding in this wise portrait of a tormented literary giant, written by a novelist and a poet.
Certainly he had his oddities - as did Sylvia Townsend Warner, for that matter - but it seems rather a strange way to characterise him: "When did you stop beating your wife?" - or, as in this case, repressing your sexual predilections?


T. H. White: The Master (1957)


I suppose that it highlights a problem with T. H. White's body of work as a whole, though. Just what exactly was he? As a writer, that is. We tend to see him as a children's author nowadays - if we think about him at all.

And, certainly, a couple of his books - The Sword in the Stone (1938) and Mistress Masham's Repose (1946) - have become children's classics. Confining him to that pigeon-hole seems more than a little reductive, however.


T. H. White: Mistress Masham's Repose (1946)


Actually I could easily have listed him under either of the other two categories of writer I've been compiling occasional posts about on this blog: Ghost Story Writers, or SF Luminaries.

The Master (1957) is - more or less - SF; and there are a number of ghost stories included in Earth Stopped (1934) and his other short story collections, some of them ("Soft Voices at Passenham") very good indeed.


T. H. White: The Maharajah and Other Stories (1981)


Perhaps he was primarily a fantasy writer, then? Certainly his most famous book, The Once and Future King (1958) is more fantasy than anything else. It is, in fact, probably the most influential retelling of the Arthurian legend since Tennyson's Idylls of the King - and, like Tennyson, its principal source of both raw material and inspiration is Thomas Malory's Morte d'Arthur (1485).


T. H. White: The Once and Future King (1958 / 1967)


I remember the blurb on the back of my paperback copy referring to White's tetralogy as "a glorious dream of the Middle Ages as they never were but should have been." That strikes me as a pretty accurate description.

In form, The Once and Future King masquerades as a kind of modern commentary on Malory's translation/adaptation of his original French sources in the 13th-century Vulgate Cycle. But it's that pretence which allows White to soar into complex realms of psychology visible only by implication behind the conventions of late medieval romance.


T. H. White: The Sword in the Stone (1938)


I once examined an Honours essay on The Once and Future King. In pursuit of their thesis, this particular student had examined quite closely the extensive revisions White made in both The Sword in the Stone and The Witch in the Wood in order to fit them into the more ambitious, interlinked structure of the larger collection.


T. H. White: The Witch in the Wood (1939)


I see that I said in my comments:
I’m particularly impressed by the textual comparisons this student has made between the initial and revised versions of the first two volumes of the tetralogy (or set of five books: depending on whether or not one counts the Book of Merlyn). The points he makes about the changes in the 1958 text are worked seamlessly and tellingly into his overall argument.
I recommended the highest possible grade for the essay, perhaps partially because I'd been longing to make that comparison myself ever since I learned that there was an earlier version of "The Queen of Air and Darkness", Part Two of The Once and Future King.


T. H. White: The Goshawk (1951)


To complicate things still further, White's initial successes were in the field of outdoorsy, sporting adventure. England Have My Bones (1936) was his first bestseller. It was followed by Burke's Steerage (1938), and then by his masterpiece in the genre, The Goshawk - the terrifyingly intimate and (at times) shocking account of his largely unavailing attempts to tame a wild raptor.



As far as his personal life goes, if White ever had a great love, it was definitely for his Irish setter Brownie. He tried to explain the intensity of his feelings for her in a letter to his friend David "Bunny" Garnett:
It is a queer difference between this kind of thing and getting married ... married people love each other at first (I understand) and it fades by use and custom, but with dogs you love them most at last.
Garnett wasn't having any. A real and lasting relationship with an animal was, to him, absurd. In response he lectured White on the immaturity and childishness of so extravagant an overreaction to the "natural" death of a pet.

Still, the poignancy of White's letter about his beloved dog's last days has to be read to be believed:
[November 1944]

Dearest Bunny,

Brownie died today. In all her 14 years of life I have only been away from her at night for 3 times ... but I did go in to Dublin about twice a year to buy books ... and I thought she understood about this. To-day I went at 10, but the bloody devils had managed to kill her somehow when I got back at 7. She was in perfect health. I left her in my bed this morning, as it was an early start. Now I am writing with her dead head in my lap. I will sit up with her tonight, but tomorrow we must bury her. I don’t know what to do after that. I am only sitting up because of that thing about perhaps consciousness persisting a bit. She has been to me more perfect than anything else in all my life, and I have failed her at the end, an 180-1 chance. If it had been any other day I might have known that I had done my best. These fools here did not poison her — I will not believe that. But I could have done more. They kept rubbing her, they say. She looks quite alive. She was wife, mother, mistress & child. Please forgive me for writing this distressing stuff, but it is helping me. Her little tired face cannot be helped. Please do not write to me at all about her, for very long time, but tell me if I ought to buy another bitch or not, as I do not know what to think about anything. I am certain I am not going to kill myself about it, as I thought I might once. However, you will find this all very hysterical, so I may as well stop. I still expect to wake up and find it wasn’t. She was all I had.

love from TIM
Another letter followed hot on its heels:
Dear Bunny,

Please forgive me writing again, but I am so lonely and can’t stop crying and it is the shock. I waked her for two nights and buried her this morning in a turf basket, all my eggs in one basket. Now I am to begin a new life and it is important to begin it right, but I find it difficult to think straight. It is about whether I ought to buy another dog or not ... I might not survive another bereavement like this in 12 years’ time, and dread to put myself in the way of it. If your father & mother & both sons had died at the same moment as Ray, unexpectedly, in your absence, you would know what I am talking about. Unfortunately Brownie was barren, like myself, and as I have rather an overbearing character I had made her live through me, as I lived through her. Brownie was my life and I am lonely for just such another reservoir for my love. But if I did get such reservoir it would die in about 12 years and at present I feel I couldn’t face that. Do people get used to being bereaved? This is my first time. I am feeling very lucky to have a friend like you that I can write to without being thought dotty to go on like that about mere dogs.
They did not poison her. It was one of her little heart attacks and they did not know how to treat it and killed her by the wrong kindnesses.
You must try to understand that I am and will remain entirely without wife or brother or sister or child and that Brownie supplied more than the place of these to me. We loved each other more and more every year.

... All I can do now is to remember her dead as I buried her, the cold grey jowl in the basket, and not as my heart’s blood, which she was for the last eight years of our twelve.

- Quoted from The Futility Closet (17/10/2014)


Knowing what we now do about the perversity of some of David Garnett's own relationships - his curious April-November marriage to his male lover Duncan Grant's young daughter Angelica Bell, for instance - it's hard not to see his indignation at White's confessions as the pot calling the kettle black.

But then, in this as in so many other matters, White seems to have been ahead of his times rather than - as the censorious Garnett implied - behind them. Such intense love for an animal companion: especially, as in this case, a dog who had been by White's side, through thick and thin, for fourteen years, surely no longer requires an apology?

There were, to be sure, other aspects to White's "repressed sexual predilections" - most of them innocuous enough to a modern reader - but for more detail on that I'll refer you to the White / Garnett Letters or, preferably, S. T. Warner's biography.


T. H. White: The Elephant and the Kangaroo (1947)


Mind you, White's generic and stylistic experiments certainly could lead him astray at times. His account of a new great flood, set in Ireland, where he lived during most of World War II, was greatly resented by his local hosts, who felt that it depicted them as ignorant peasants.

White was horrified by this - as he saw it - misreading of a light-hearted fantasy. but the fact remains that he was no longer welcome in this home away from home. The disposition to turn everything you encounter into copy is, I suppose, the writer's curse: but particularly so in White's case, since it took so long for each of his books to accrete.

Maybe he's not a great writer. Maybe he is. It's hard to take much interest in such matters of literary taxonomy. Above all, he was a great original, and each of his books takes a strikingly different approach to the question of how to live on this earth. His inability to fit into any particular category or mold is probably why they remain so lively and intriguing sixty years after his death.

I'm very fond of Sylvia Townsend Warner's writing, too. All things considered, given her own political and social leanings, I'm not sure she was best placed to interpret her friend Tim. She certainly did her best, however - throwing up her hands at times to admit her perplexity - and her biography remains an indispensable adjunct to the body of his work.

All of it, imho, deserves to be read, reread, and treasured.


Sylvia Townsend Warner: T. H. White: A Biography (1967 / 2023)





T. H. White

Terence Hanbury White
(1906-1964)

Books I own are marked in bold:
    Poetry:

  1. Loved Helen (1929)
    • Loved Helen and Other Poems. London: Chatto & Windus, 1929.
  2. The Green Bay Tree (1929)
  3. A Joy Proposed. Ed. Kurth Sprague (1980)
    • A Joy Proposed: Poems. Ed. Kurth Sprague. 1980. London: Secker & Warburg, 1982.

  4. Fiction:

  5. [with R. McNair Scott] Dead Mr Nixon (1931)
  6. [as James Aston] First Lesson (1932)
  7. [as James Aston] They Winter Abroad (1932)
  8. Darkness at Pemberley (1932)
  9. Farewell Victoria (1933)
    • Farewell Victoria. 1933. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1945.
  10. Earth Stopped (1934)
    • Earth Stopped, or Mr. Marx’s Sporting Tour. London: Collins, 1934.
  11. Gone to Ground (1935)
  12. The Sword in the Stone (1938)
    • The Sword in the Stone. 1938. London: Collins, 1945.
  13. The Witch in the Wood (1939)
  14. The Ill-Made Knight (1940)
  15. Mistress Masham's Repose (1946)
    • Mistress Masham’s Repose. London: Jonathan Cape, 1947.
  16. The Elephant and the Kangaroo (1947)
    • The Elephant and the Kangaroo. London: Jonathan Cape, 1948.
  17. The Master: An Adventure Story (1957)
    • The Master: An Adventure Story. 1957. A Puffin Book. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976.
  18. The Once and Future King (1958)
    1. The Sword in the Stone (1938)
    2. The Queen of Air and Darkness (1939)
    3. The Ill-Made Knight (1940)
    4. The Candle in the Wind (1958)
    • The Once and Future King. London: Collins, 1958.
    • The Once and Future King. 1958. Fontana Books. London: Collins, 1967.
  19. The Book of Merlyn (1977)
    • The Book of Merlyn: The Unpublished Conclusion to the Once and Future King. Prologue by Sylvia Townsend Warner. Illustrations by Trevor Stubley. 1977. London: Fontana / Collins, 1978.
  20. The Maharajah and Other Stories: from Earth Stopped (1934) and Gone to Ground (1935). Ed. Kurth Sprague (1981)
    • The Maharajah and Other Stories. Ed. Kurth Sprague. 1981. London: Futura, 1983.
  21. The Once and Future King (1996)
    1. The Sword in the Stone (1938)
    2. The Queen of Air and Darkness (1939)
    3. The Ill-Made Knight (1940)
    4. The Candle in the Wind (1958)
    5. The Book of Merlyn (1977)
    • The Once and Future King. 1939, 1940, 1958, 1977. HarperVoyager. London: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996.

  22. Non-fiction:

  23. England Have My Bones (1936)
    • England Have My Bones. 1936. St. James’s Library. London: Collins, 1952.
  24. Burke's Steerage, or, The Amateur Gentleman’s Introduction to Noble Sports and Pastimes (1938)
  25. The Age of Scandal (1950)
    • The Age of Scandal: an Excursion through a Minor Period. 1950. London: Jonathan Cape, 1951.
  26. The Goshawk (1951)
    • The Goshawk. 1951. With diagrams from sketches by the author and specially illustrated for RU by Ralph Thompson. London: Readers Union Ltd. / Jonathan Cape, 1953.
    • The Goshawk. 1951. Penguin Modern Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975.
  27. The Scandalmonger (1952)
    • The Scandalmonger. London: Jonathan Cape, 1952.
  28. The Book of Beasts (1954)
    • The Bestiary: a Book of Beasts. 1954. New York: Capricorn Books, 1960.
  29. The Godstone and the Blackymor (1959)
    • The Godstone and the Blackymor. Illustrated by Edward Ardizzone. 1959. London: The Reprint Society, 1960.
  30. America at Last (1965)

  31. Letters:

  32. The White / Garnett Letters. Ed. David Garnett (1968)
  33. Letters to a Friend: The Correspondence Between T. H. White and L. J. Potts (1984)
    • Letters to a Friend: The Correspondence between T. H. White and L. J. Potts. Ed. François Gallix. Gloucester: Alan Sutton, 1984.

  34. Secondary:

  35. Warner, Sylvia Townsend. T. H. White: A Biography. London: Jonathan Cape / Chatto & Windus, 1967.