Showing posts sorted by date for query Boswell. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Boswell. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, January 02, 2014

The True Story of the Novel (7): The Modern Novel



Gustave Doré: Don Quixote and Sancho Setting Out (1863)


One of the best university courses I ever did was a lecture series on the eighteenth-century novel, with Dr Jonathan Lamb. It must have been about thirty years ago: in 1982, I think - shortly before he forsook Auckland university for the brighter lights of the United States, in any case.



His idea was to trace the "Cervantine novel" from its origins in Don Quixote; thence to Fielding's Shamela, Joseph Andrews, and Tom Jones; and finally on to Smollett's Roderick Random and Humphrey Clinker, with side-excursions into Hogarth and Le Sage - though not, interestingly, Defoe or Richardson. I'd been expecting something far more akin to Ian Watts' standard doctrine of the rise of the bourgeois novel, whereas this offered a whole new perspective on the (so-called) "picaresque" novel of incident. Fielding's idea of the novel as a "comic epic in prose" was much to the fore, as I recall.

I don't how original this approach actually was, but it seemed brilliantly insightful to me at the time, and offered me a whole new way of thinking about a series of books I'd previously known mainly as the contents of a cupboard in David Copperfield's house:
My father had left a small collection of books in a little room upstairs, to which I had access (for it adjoined my own) and which nobody else in our house ever troubled. From that blessed little room, Roderick Random, Peregrine Pickle, Humphrey Clinker, Tom Jones, the Vicar of Wakefield, Don Quixote, Gil Blas, and Robinson Crusoe, came out, a glorious host, to keep me company. They kept alive my fancy, and my hope of something beyond that place and time ...



I guess that's what started me off questioning Ian Watt's account of the Rise of the Novel. Successive unsuccessful attempts to read Richardson's Pamela and Clarissa did contrast rather sharply with the entertainment and profit I found in such works as The Golden Ass, The Tale of Genji, and The Red Chamber Dream, not one of which could be regarded as a "novel" according to Watts's somewhat reductionist genealogy.

In short, if the coveted title of "first novelist" came down to a stark choice between Samuel Richardson and Lady Murasaki (ignoring for a moment the prior claims of Apuleius or Heliodorus), I was always going to vote for the Japanese candidate. Watts's vision (somewhat inevitably, given the fact that his book first appeared in 1957) seemed to culminate in the stultifying confines of the pre-60s British novel: John Braine, C. P. Snow, Muriel Spark, and even duller apostles of the middle class tea-&-adultery-in-the-provinces school.

The vistas opened up for me by Jonathan Lamb (together with my own reading in the non-European fictional traditions of Arabia, China, Iceland, India, Japan, Persia) appeared to offer a far more fruitful explanation of the magic realism and postmodern game-playing which had come to characterise the novels of the 60s, 70s and 80s.

So if it's that obvious that Watts's schema is inadequate, why has it taken so long for people to wake up to the fact? Why do people still teach his outdated doctrines in so many schools and universities?



Well, one partial answer - sheer ignorance - is given in the essay "Farther Away: Robinson Crusoe, David Foster Wallace, and the Island of Solitude," by American novelist Jonathan Franzen, published in the New Yorker in 2011. Franzen begins with a brief account of his personal experience of the boredom and alienation of modern life:
... every morning the same revving doses of nicotine and caffeine; every evening the same assault on my e-mail queue; every night the same drinking for the same brain-dulling pop of pleasure. At a certain point, having read about Masafuera [the island on which the alleged model for Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, Alexander Selkirk, was marooned - or, rather, marooned himself - from 1704 to 1709], I began to imagine running away and being alone there, like Selkirk, in the interior of the island, where nobody lives even seasonally.



Carl Scottsberg: The Ruin of a Hut On Masafuera (1924)


No doubt with his eventual essay already in mind, he is careful to take with him a copy of Defoe's novel:
I also thought it might be good, while I was there, to reread the book generally considered to be the first English novel [my italics]. “Robinson Crusoe” was the great early document of radical individualism, the story of an ordinary person’s practical and psychic survival in profound isolation. The novelistic enterprise associated with individualism — the search for meaning in realistic narrative — went on to become the culture’s dominant literary mode for the next three centuries. Crusoe’s voice can be heard in the voice of Jane Eyre, the Underground Man, the Invisible Man, and Sartre’s Roquentin.

That list of places where Crusoe's voice "can be heard" - in novels by (respectively) Charlotte Brontë, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Ralph Ellison (presumably: rather than H. G. Wells), and Jean-Paul Sartre - sounds impressively erudite. One can't help wondering, though, if it's linguistic and cultural diversity isn't intended as some kind of corrective to an previous list in another essay by Franzen, "Mr. Difficult: William Gaddis and the Problem of Hard-to-Read Books," where he came clean about his own problems with some of the more difficult nuts to crack in the canon of world fiction:
Even as an adult, I consider myself a slattern of a reader. I have started (in many cases, more than once) "Moby-Dick," "The Man Without Qualities," "Mason & Dixon," "Don Quixote," "Remembrance of Things Past," "Doctor Faustus," "Naked Lunch," "The Golden Bowl," and "The Golden Notebook" without coming anywhere near finishing them. Indeed, by a comfortable margin, the most difficult book I ever voluntarily read in its entirety was Gaddis's nine-hundred-and-fifty-six-page first novel, "The Recognitions."



It's seldom a great idea to confess to your own ignorance. I haven't read all of the above either, but I'm not going to tell you which ones are still sitting on the ol' too-hard pile. More to the point, however, Franzen's infamous dissing of Oprah Winfrey, after she had selected his breakthrough novel The Corrections for her book club in 2001 (she responded by unselecting it), had given him a rep as an uppity intellectual snob, which he seemed - back then, at any rate - eager to correct. Later he appears to have decided just to go with it. You can never feign enough dumbness to satisfy the truly dumb. To return to the "Robinson Crusoe" essay, though, Franzen continues to elaborate on his theme of the dullness of existence for quite some time:
... there persisted, in the very word “novel,” with its promise of novelty, a memory of more youthful experiences so engrossing that I could sit quietly for hours and never think of boredom. Ian Watt, in his classic “The Rise of the Novel,” correlated the eighteenth-century burgeoning of novelistic production with the growing demand for at-home entertainment by women who’d been liberated from traditional household tasks and had too much time on their hands. In a very direct way, according to Watt, the English novel had risen from the ashes of boredom.

Really? I think Ian Watt might be a bit surprised to read this précis of his argument, but it is at least interesting to discover that: 1/ the novel arose primarily as a response to boredom (doesn't all literature? one is tempted to add); and 2/ since middle-class women weren't any longer more usefully employed by doing chores, and therefore had "too much time on their hands," it became necessary to produce novels for them instead.

This evidence-free set of assertions (which unfortunately founders on the rock of the innumerable pre-eighteenth century novels of all kinds chronicled with such relentless industry by Steven Moore in his 2,000 page tome The Novel: An Alternative History) unfortunately signals another dominant theme in Franzen's writing: misognyny.

Here are some choice plums from Franzen's New Yorker piece on turn-of-the-century American female novelist Edith Wharton:
Wharton did have one potentially redeeming disadvantage: she wasn't pretty.

That her ... twenty-eight years of marriage were almost entirely sexless was perhaps less a function of her looks than of her sexual ignorance.

Wharton might well be more congenial to us now, if alongside her other advantages, she’d looked like Grace Kelly or Jacqueline Kennedy.

[The House of Mirth] can be read … as a sadistically slow and thorough punishment of the pretty girl she couldn’t be.



Franzen's bizarre line of argument prompted a response, "Not Pretty", by novelist Victoria Patterson in the LA Review of Books, where she complains that "He’d taken a literary hero and written about her as if ranking a Maxim photo spread”:
Do we even have to say that physical beauty is beside the point when discussing the work of a major author? Was Tolstoy pretty? Is Franzen? Wharton’s appearance has no relevance to her work. Franzen perpetuates the typically patriarchal standard of ranking a woman’s beauty before discussing her merits, whether she is an intellectual, artist, politician, activist, or musician.



I don't myself have strong views on whether or not Franzen is really "anti-women" - though one can certainly find some hair-raising comments on the subject scattered throughout his oeuvre, not least in Freedom, his fourth novel. His diagnosis, quoted above, of the "origins" of the English novel (bored women with too much time on their hands), does, however, sound startlingly close to his explanation, in a radio interview, of just why he felt so uncomfortable about seeing Oprah's bookclub logo on the cover of The Corrections:
So much of reading is sustained in this country, I think, by the fact that women read while men are off golfing or watching football on TV or playing with their flight simulator or whatever. I worry — I'm sorry that it's, uh — I had some hope of actually reaching a male audience and I've heard more than one reader in signing lines now at bookstores say "If I hadn't heard you, I would have been put off by the fact that it is an Oprah pick. I figure those books are for women. I would never touch it." Those are male readers speaking ...

Oink, oink, Mr. Franzen? "I had some hope of actually [my emphasis] reaching a male audience" -- not just those pesky females who squander their time reading "while men are off" doing manly things such as "golfing or watching football on TV or playing with their flight simulator" ...

Be that as it may - returning to our starting-point, his essay on Robinson Crusoe and Aelxander Selkirk (with a few reflections on the recent suicide of his friend David Foster Wallace thrown in for good measure):
With three more days to fill and my knees worn out by downhill hiking, I had no choice but to start reading Samuel Richardson’s first novel, “Pamela,” which I’d brought along mainly because it’s a lot shorter than “Clarissa.” All I’d known about “Pamela” was that Henry Fielding had satirized it in “Shamela,” his own first venture into novel writing. I hadn’t known that “Shamela” was only one of many works published in immediate response to “Pamela,” and that “Pamela,” indeed, had been possibly the biggest news of any kind in London in 1741. But as soon as I started reading it I could see why: the novel is compelling and electric with sex and class conflicts, and it details psychological extremes at a level of specificity like nothing before it [my emphasis]. Pamela Andrews isn’t everything and more. She’s simply and uniquely Pamela, a beautiful servant girl whose virtue is under sustained and ingenious assault by the son of her late employer. Her story is told through her letters to her parents, and when she finds out that these letters are being intercepted and read by her would-be seducer, Mr. B., she continues to write them while knowing that Mr. B. will read them. Pamela’s piousness and self-dramatizing hysterics were bound to infuriate a certain kind of reader (one of the books published in response satirized Richardson’s subtitle, “Virtue Rewarded,” as “Feign’d Innocence Detected”), but underneath her strident virtue and Mr. B.’s lascivious machinations is a fascinatingly rendered love story. The realistic power of this story was what made the book such a groundbreaking sensation. Defoe had staked out the territory of radical individualism, which has remained a fruitful subject for novelists as late as Beckett and Wallace, but it was Richardson who first granted full fictional access to the hearts and minds of individuals whose solitude has been overwhelmed by love for someone else.



It all sounds so learned, so well-informed. He even knows the date of Pamela's publication! The fact that it was parodied by Fielding! Talk about an egghead! But the clincher comes when he explains why this was such a crucial first step for the novel:
The realistic power of this story was what made the book such a groundbreaking sensation.

No more or less "real" than Marivaux's Vie de Marianne (which he began publishing in 1731); far less psychologically insightful than Prévost's Manon Lescaut (1731), themselves much influenced by earlier English novels in the genre, such as Aphra Behn's Love-Letters Between a Nobleman and His Sister (1684-87): "groundbreaking," then, in what sense?
Defoe had staked out the territory of radical individualism, which has remained a fruitful subject for novelists as late as Beckett and Wallace, but it was Richardson who first granted full fictional access to the hearts and minds of individuals whose solitude has been overwhelmed by love for someone else.

The "desert-island" narrative goes back at least as far as Homer's Odyssey (not to mention the colossally successful novelisation of his story by François Fénelon, Les Aventures de Télémaque (1693-94)), though it's true that Defoe's particular version of it certainly did exercise a huge influence on subsequent European writers. It's that comment about how Richardson "first granted full fictional access to the hearts and minds of individuals whose solitude has been overwhelmed by love for someone else" which really grates on me, though. Has anyone ever shown greater insight into the "hearts and minds of individuals whose solitude has been overwhelmed by love for someone else" than Lady Murasaki, for instance? Actually, more to the point, few writers have ever shown less knowledge of the subject than Richardson, I would have thought. Have a quick squizz through his own self-proclaimed chef d'oeuvre Sir Charles Grandison (1753) and tell me that I'm wrong.



There's no shame in not having read all of these great novels which predated Defoe and Richardson - not much, even, in not even having heard of most of them: our educational system is monstrously, monotonously monolingual. If it wasn't written in English, then don't bother me with it, is the attitude of many professed experts on the subject even now.

Just as with Franzen's fatuous comments about Edith Wharton (nudge-nudge remarks about her sex-life or lack of same; man-of-the-world judgements on her "attractiveness"), it isn't so much the content of these (kind of foolish and offensive) opinions as the knowing, superior tone he affects which is really irritating. His adventures on the island of Masafuera are otherwise quite entertaining to read - and the stuff on Defoe and Richardson is (presumably) a fairly faithful summary of his lecture notes from Freshman English. But just please stop pretending to be well-informed on the subject.

To put it in terms that might make more sense to a birdwatcher as keen as Franzen, it's more or less the equivalent of claiming that birds were unknown in the Americas before the arrival of Columbus in 1492.



Margaret Anne Doody: A Natural Passion (1974)


For all his unfortunate biases, though, Franzen at least has the virtue of actually being a novelist and knowing something about how they work (rather a fine one, too, I think, since I've somehow managed to read all four of his huge novels to date, not to mention his autobiography and one of his essay collections). There are deeper, darker sinners than he. You recall the responses to Margaret Anne Doody's own theories on the subject which I quoted from in my first piece on this topic?
When I gave a talk on the early novels and their influence on eighteenth-century literature ... in April 1993, I was asked during the question period "why I wanted to bash everything down to one level?" I had not hitherto thought of my thesis in that way, but I could see that, to anyone used to the Rise of the Novel as a story of hierarchy and spatial erection, my narrative could seem like a loss of attributed eminence.

Doody also quotes distinguished critic J. Paul Hunter to the effect that "getting rid of the categories 'Novel' and 'Romance' would be 'dangerous.' He expresses a fear of a 'new literary history built thoughtlessly on the rubble of the old'." She goes on to summarise his views as follows:
A change in the categories would be a kind of bomb, reducing structures to leveled rubble and encouraging the mushrooming of jerry-built hutments. ...



Who cares about the truth, after all? Ptolemaic astronomy was good enough for the Ancients; it's good enough for most practical purposes; what do we need with this new-fangled Copernican stuff about the earth going around the sun? It just unsettles people and forces us to revise all the textbooks ...

You may think I'm exaggerating, but anyone who's spent any time reading - or even just leafing through - Steven Moore's immense work on the novel from its origins until 1800 knows that the contention that Richardson and Defoe "began" the novel, or even the English novel, or even the English psychological realist novel is talking through his hat.

When the evidence is this overwhelming, it's time to dust off the lecture notes and acknowledge the paradigm-change. It does no favours to (especially) Defoe to see his writing in this way. He was a great novelist in his own right, not simply as a "precursor" or "progenitor" of later Man Alone-like, Robinsonade writers.

As for Richardson, I fear he's been forced down so many impressionable young readers' throats as a result of his undeserved reputation as the "father of the novel" that the unreadable wastes of Clarissa or Grandison have come to characterise all pre-nineteenth century fiction for them. Poor sods. They could have been reading Apuleius or the Genji instead - and would have enjoyed themselves a good deal more.

As Franzen puts it, so eloquently, above: "there persisted, in the very word 'novel,' with its promise of novelty, a memory of more youthful experiences so engrossing that I could sit quietly for hours and never think of boredom." Novels are not boring. That's their very essence: they're compounded of the latest novelties (hence the name) - whatever's currently most exciting, most engrossing, most titillating, most depraved ...

I know that a lot of novels are boring: dull, poorly constructed, hard to follow, vaguely plotted, simplistically motivated - but that's because they've failed in their prime directive of interesting readers. The pompous, hypocritical maunderings of Richardson are a perfect example of just such a failure. Critics often quote Dr. Johnson's remark to Boswell: "Why, sir, if you were to read Richardson for the story … you would hang yourself … you must read him for the sentiment." They don't seem to understand that this is not exactly a ringing endorsement of their hero, though.

There's no real need to dethrone Richardson in order to appreciate the 2,000 years of novel writing that preceded him. Clarissa does appear, still, to have its fans - in fact it comes fourth in a recent Guardian listing of the 100 Best Novels [in English? They don't bother to specify], where it's praised for "the subtlety with which [Richardson] unfolds the dark tragedy of Clarissa's fatal attraction to Lovelace." Go figure. Personally I'd see all those hundreds and hundreds of pages of completely implausible letters concocted by his characters as about as psychologically "subtle" as John Bunyan's nuanced portrait of the Pope in the Pilgrim's Progress (no. 1 on the list):
Now I saw in my dream, that at the end of this valley lay blood, bones, ashes, and mangled bodies of men, even of pilgrims that had gone this way formerly; and while I was musing what should be the reason, I espied a little before me a cave, where two giants, POPE and PAGAN, dwelt in old time; by whose power and tyranny the men whose bones, blood, and ashes, &c., lay there, were cruelly put to death. But by this place Christian went without much danger, whereat I somewhat wondered; but I have learnt since, that PAGAN has been dead many a day; and as for the other, though he be yet alive, he is, by reason of age, and also of the many shrewd brushes that he met with in his younger days, grown so crazy and stiff in his joints, that he can now do little more than sit in his cave's mouth, grinning at pilgrims as they go by, and biting his nails because he cannot come at them.



Great stuff! All I can say about Clarissa is that its magic passed me by. I saw a BBC dramatisation once which, by cutting out all the verbiage, did seem to get to the dark, grimy heart of the matter - but when I discovered that the villainous Lovelace was (if anything) a more tedious and logorrhoeic correspondent than his victim - I still find it difficult to understand how that's even possible - I concluded it was not for me.

I love novels. I like reading them, and I like trying to write them. I've published three of them, and have recently completed the first draft of a fourth. I simply do not accept Richardson as the great-grandaddy of the genre, and it's for that reason that I'll always be grateful to Jonathan Lamb for simply leaving him out of his account of the growth of the form, and starting with the fascinating metafictional complexities of Cervantes instead.

Cervantes (of course) did not consider himself to be originating a genre, either. So far as he was concerned, he was building a new edifice on the very well-established foundations laid by Heliodorus and the other classical novelists, not to mention their medieval and renaissance successors: Giovanni Boccaccio principal among them. For him, it was an old form which needed to be revivified. How can it be thought to have "begun" in 1741?



Abraham Bloemaert: Theagenes and Chariclea (1626)


There's an interesting clue to be found in John J. Winkler's fascinating 1985 book on Apuleius, Auctor & Actor, which I mentioned above in my post on the classical novel. In it he quotes from an essay by a certain B. A. Babcock on the various genres underlying the picaresque novel (or "romance", as he prefers to call it):
Underlying the episodic and antidevelopmental narrative of the picaresque is yet another important pattern of organization: the structure of the narrative genre (or genres) being parodied. While numerous critics have discussed the picaresque as "antiromance," as a "countergenre" that develops diacritically as an inversion of the pattern of chivalric romance, few have realized that it embodies the structures of the romance at the same time as it inverts them. The code which is being broken is always implicitly there [my emphasis], for every act of deconstructing reconstructs and reaffirms the structure of romance. This formal, generic, nondisjunction is central to the picaresque's problematic ambiguity: the pattern of expectation created by the inverted form (i.e. the picaresque) competes with the still somewhat operant, formal constraint of the genre or genres that have been inverted. in other words, the reader receives at least two sets of competing formal metacode signals: "this is a romance"; "this is a picaresque antiromance." As a consequence, even a reader familiar with the tradition is somewhat confused and frustrated, and the narrative "message" has an initial appearance of chaos.

- B. A. Babcock, "'Liberty's a Whore': Inversions, Marginalia, and Picaresque Narrative," in The Reversible World: Symbolic Inversion in Art and Society, ed. B. A. Babcock (Ithaca, NY, 1978): 99.
[Quoted in John J. Winkler, Auctor & Actor: A Narratological Reading of Apuleius's Golden Ass. 1985 (Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991): 271-72].



William-Adolphe Bouguereau: Cupid & Psyche (1889)


"The code which is being broken is always implicitly there" - that's the vital point to be gleaned from this passage, I think. Like Cervantes', Apuleius' novel functions as a parody of various pre-existing narrative genres: the confessional autobiography (like St. Augustine's); the episodic tale of implausible adventure (like Lucian's "True History," and his other narrative sketches - including "The Ass", which Apuleius's story may well have been based on); the supernatural tale (found in profusion in Petronius's earlier Satyricon), the allegorical fairy tale ("Cupid and Psyche"). But by parodying them, he also embodies them. Their conventions underlie his. Without recognition of these patterns, little sense can be made of the intention of his work. The same rule applies to Cervantes' "anti-romance." He didn't dislike romances (in fact he wrote two of them) - he simply saw an opportunity to mock their excesses and thus undermine their hegemony.

This rule also accounts for the success of Fielding's inversions of Richardson: Shamela, its sequel Joseph Andrews, and his masterpiece Tom Jones. The facile nature of his initial mockery of Pamela quickly grew into a realisation that it could provide him with a prototype for his "comic epic in prose." An inversion, by definition, contains both itself and the thing inverted, or else it would make no sense to the reader. We don't laugh at jokes unless we can easily spot their targets.

All novelists, in other words, work in the shadow of their immediate predecessors (as well as under the influence of more distant ancestors). Whether they seek to build on and perfect what has gone before (as Lady Murasaki did with the pre-existing monogatari tradition, or as Snorri and his contemporaries did with the oral family traditions of Iceland), or try to subvert and transform them (as Cervantes did with the chivalric romance, and Fielding with the novel of sentiment), they require a prior knowledge of these traditions in their readers before their innovations can make sense.

The fallacy lying behind Ian Watt's model of the Rise of the Novel (or the very literal and reductionist way in which it's been interpreted and propagated, at any rate), is that it tries to construct a kind of novelistic "Big Bang" in the early eighteenth century which has given rise to the fictional universes we now see around us. Such an event may well have taken place at some point in the past, but I fear that it must have predated literacy, since it has left few traces beyond the existence of an already thriving and sophisticated novel tradition in Ancient Greece and Rome - not to mention interesting hints of something similar in Egyptian narrative literature.

Given the tenuous nature of diffusionist models of literary transmission over evolutionary explanations of genre transformations, I'd prefer myself to postulate a "Steady State" theory of continual growth and renewal in that most natural - and certainly not least widespread - of human literary forms, the long prose narrative, or "novel."



To conclude, then, here are some of the more interesting stops in the development of the post-Cervantine novel:


Translation of Heliodorus (1560)

The Spanish Novel


Authors:
  1. Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (1547-1616)
  2. Anthologies & Secondary Literature

_____________________________________

    Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (1547-1616)

  1. Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. Obras Completas: Don Quijote de la Mancha / La Galatea / Los trabjaos de Persiles y Sigismunda / Las doce novelas ejemplares /Las once obras teatrales / Los once entremeses / Viaje del Parnaso / Poesías sueltas. Biografía de Lorenzo Hernáiz. Madrid: M. Aguilar, Editor, n.d. [c.1929].

  2. Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha. 1605 & 1615. Ed. Martín de Ricquer. 1962. Clásicos Universales Planeta. Barcelona: Editorial Planeta, S. A., 1994.

  3. Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha: Edicion conforme a la ultima corregida por la Academia Española, con la vida del autor y notas para la buena inteligencia del texto. 1605 & 1615. Paris: Librería de Garnier Hermanos, 1889.

  4. Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. Don Quijote de la Mancha. 1605 & 1615. Ed. Martín de Ricquer. 1944. 2 vols. Colección “Libros de Bolsillo Z”, 4-5. Barcelona: Editorial Juventud, S. A., 1979.

  5. Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. Don Quixote. 1605 & 1615. Trans. P. Motteux. 1700-12. Introduction by J. G. Lockhart. 2 vols. Everyman’s Library, 385-86. 1906 & 1909. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. / New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1943.

  6. Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. The Adventures of Don Quixote. 1605 & 1615. Trans. J. M. Cohen. 1950. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1964.

  7. Cervantes, Miguel de. Don Quixote. 1605 & 1615. Trans. Edith Grossman. Introduction by Harold Bloom. 2003. Vintage Classics. London: Random House, 2005.

  8. Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. Journey to Parnassus: Translated into English Tercets with Preface and Illustrative Notes, to which are Subjoined the Antique Text and Translation of the Letter of Cervantes to Mateo Vazquez. 1614. Trans. James Y. Gibson. London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Co., 1883.

  9. Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. Teatro Completo. Ed. Agustín Blánquez. 2 vols. Obras Maestras. Barcelona: Editorial Iberia, S. A., 1966.

  10. Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. Exemplary Stories. Trans. C. A. Jones. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972.


  11. Anthologies & Secondary Literature

  12. Alpert, Michael, trans. Two Spanish Picaresque Novels: Lazarillo de Tormes (Anon.) / The Swindler (El Buscón), Francisco de Quevedo. 1554 & 1626. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969.



Miguel de Cervantes: La Galatea (1585)






Longus: Les Amours pastorales de Daphnis et Chloé (1718)

The French Novel


Authors:
  1. Jacques Cazotte (1719-1792)
  2. Choderlos de Laclos (1741-1803)
  3. Denis Diderot (1713-1784)
  4. François Fénelon (1651-1715)
  5. Madame de La Fayette (1634-1693)
  6. Alain-René Lesage (1668-1747)
  7. Pierre de Marivaux (1688-1763)
  8. Comte de Mirabeau (1749-1791)
  9. L'Abbé Prévost (1697-1763)
  10. Bernardin de Saint-Pierre (1737-1814)
  11. Anthologies & Secondary Literature

_____________________________________

    Jacques Cazotte (1719-1792)

  1. Cazotte, Jacques. Le Diable Amoureux. 1772. Ed. Max Milner. GF. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1979.


  2. Pierre Ambroise François Choderlos de Laclos (1741-1803)

  3. Choderlos de Laclos. Oeuvres complètes. Ed. Maurice Allem. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 6. 1951. Paris: Gallimard, 1959.

  4. Choderlos de Laclos. Les liaisons dangereuses. 1782. Ed. Jean Mistler. Paris: Livre de Poche, 1972.

  5. Laclos, Choderlos de. Les Liaisons Dangereuses. 1782. Trans. P. W. K. Stone. 1961. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977.


  6. Denis Diderot (1713-1784)

  7. Diderot, Denis. Oeuvres. Ed. André Billy. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 25. Paris: Gallimard, 1969.

  8. Diderot, Denis. Pensées Philosophiques: Édition critique. 1746. Ed. Robert Niklaus. Textes Littéraires Français. Génève: Librairie Droz / Paris: Librairie Minard, 1957.

  9. Diderot, Denis. Pensées philosophiques / Lettre sur les aveugles / Supplément au Voyage de Bougainville. 1746, 1749, 1772. Ed. Antoine Adam. GF. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1972.

  10. Diderot, Denis. Entretien entre D’Alembert et Diderot / Le Rêve de D’Alembert / Suite de l’entretien. 1769. Ed. Jacques Roger. 1965. GF. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1973.

  11. Diderot, Denis. Le Neveu de Rameau et autres dialogues philosophiques. Ed. Jean Varloot. Notes by Nicole Évrard. Collection Folio, 171. Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1972.

  12. Diderot, Denis. Jacques the Fatalist and His Master. 1796. Trans. Michael Henry. Introduction & Notes by Martin Hall. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986.

  13. Diderot, Denis. The Nun (La Religieuse). 1796. Trans. Marianne Sinclair. Introduction & Afterword by Richard Griffiths. New English Library Classics. London: The New English Library Ltd., 1966.


  14. François de Salignac de la Mothe-Fénelon [François Fénelon] (1651-1715)

  15. Fénelon. Les Aventures de Télémaque. 1699. Les Meilleurs Auteurs Classiques: Français et Étrangers. Paris: Ernest Flammarion, Éditeur, 1925.


  16. Marie-Madeleine Pioche de La Vergne, comtesse de La Fayette [Madame de La Fayette] (1634-1693)

  17. Lafayette, Madame de. La Princesse de Clèves. 1678. Ed. Émile Magne. Textes Littéraires Français. Génève: Librairie Droz / Lille: Librairie Giard, 1950.

  18. Lafayette, Madame de. Romans et nouvelles: Textes revus sur les editions originales. Édition illustrée. Ed. Émile Magne. Classiques Garnier. Paris: Éditions Garnier Frères, 1958.


  19. Alain-René Lesage / Le Sage (1668-1747)

  20. Le Sage, Alain-René. Le Diable Boiteux. 1707. Oeuvres de Le Sage. Avec une notice par Anatole France. 2 vols. Paris: Alphonse Lemerre, Éditeur, 1878.

  21. Le Sage, René. The Devil on Two Sticks. Trans. William Strange. 1841. Introduction by Arthur Symons. Illustrated by Philip Hagreen. London: The Navarre Society Limited, 1940.

  22. Le Sage, Alain-René. Histoire de Gil Blas de Santillane. 1715, 1724 & 1735. Ed. Roger Laufer. GF. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1977.

  23. Le Sage, A. R. The Adventures of Gil Blas of Santillane. 1715, 1724 & 1735. Trans. B. H. Malkin. Collins’ Lotus Library. London & Glasgow: Collins Clear-Type Press, n.d.

  24. Le Sage, René. Théâtre: Turcaret; Crispin Rival de son maître; La Tontine. Ed. Maurice Bardon. Classiques Garnier. Paris: Éditions Garner Frères, 1948.


  25. Pierre Carlet de Chamblain de Marivaux (1688-1763)

  26. Marivaux, Pierre. La Vie de Marianne, ou Les Aventures de Madame la Comtesse de ***. 1731-1742. Ed. Frédéric Deloffre. Classiques Garnier. Paris: Éditions Garner Frères, 1963.

  27. Marivaux, Pierre. Le Paysan Parvenu. 1734-35 & 1756. Ed. Michel Gilot. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1965.

  28. Marivaux, Pierre Carlet de Chamblain de. Théâtre. Paris: Bibliothèque Hachette, n.d.

  29. Marivaux, Pierre. Up from the Country / Infidelities / The Game of Love and Chance. Trans. Leonard Tancock & David Cohen. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1980.


  30. Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, Comte de Mirabeau (1749-1791)

  31. Mirabeau, Le Comte de. The Lifted Curtain & My Conversion. Trans. Howard Nelson. Introduction by J-P Spencer. A Star Book. W. H. Allen & Co. PLC, 1986.


  32. Antoine François Prévost d'Exiles [Abbé Prévost] (1697-1763)

  33. Prévost, Abbé. Manon Lescaut: Édition illustrée. 1731. Ed. Frédéric Deloffre & Raymond Picard. Classiques Garnier. Paris: Éditions Garnier Frères, 1965.

  34. Prévost, Abbé. Manon Lescaut. 1731. Préface de Pierre Mac Orlan. 1959. Le Livre de Poche, 460. Paris: Gallimard / Librarie Générale Française, 1968.

  35. Prévost, Abbé. Manon Lescaut. 1731. Trans. L. W. Tancock. 1949. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1951.

  36. Prévost, Abbé. The History of the Chevalier des Grieux and of Manon Lescaut. 1731. Trans. Helen Waddell. Essay by Edward Sackville-West. Wood Engravings by Valentin Le Campion. London: the Folio Society, 1950.


  37. Jacques-Henri Bernardin de Saint-Pierre (1737-1814)

  38. Saint-Pierre, Bernardin de. Paul et Virginie: Édition illustrée. 1787. Ed. Pierre Trahard. Classiques Garnier. Paris: Éditions Garnier Frères, 1958.


  39. Anthologies & Secondary Literature

  40. Romanciers du XVIIème siècle: Sorel – Scarron – Furetière – Madame de la Fayette. Ed. Antoine Adam. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 131. 1958. Paris: Gallimard, 1962.



Abbé Prévost: Manon Lescaut (1731 / 1753)






Henry Fielding: Shamela (1741)

The English Novel


Authors:
  1. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
  2. Aphra Behn (1640-1689)
  3. John Bunyan (1628-1688)
  4. Margaret Cavendish (1623–1673)
  5. John Cleland (1709-1789)
  6. Daniel Defoe (c.1660-1731)
  7. Henry Fielding (1707–1754)
  8. Sarah Fielding (1710–1768)
  9. Henry Mackenzie (1745–1831)
  10. Sir Thomas More (1478-1535)
  11. Thomas Nashe (1567-c.1601)
  12. Samuel Richardson (1689-1761)
  13. Tobias George Smollett (1721–1771)
  14. Laurence Sterne (1713–1768)
  15. Jonathan Swift (1667-1745)
  16. Anthologies & Secondary Literature

_____________________________________

    Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Alban (1561-1626)

  1. Bacon, Francis, Lord Verulam. The New Atlantis. 1627. Ed. G. C. Moore Smith. Cambridge: University Press, 1900.


  2. Aphra Behn (1640-1689)

  3. Behn, Aphra. The Novels of Mrs. Aphra Behn [The Royal Slave and Other Novels]. Introduction by Ernest A. Baker. London: George Routledge & Sons, Limited / New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., n.d.

  4. Behn, Aphra. Selected Writings of the Ingenious Mrs. Aphra Behn: Comprising the four novels: The Adventure of the Black Lady, The Court of the King of Bantam, The Unfortunate Happy Lady, & The Fair Jilt; a comedy in five acts: The Dutch Lover; and selected verse and translations. Introduction by Robert Phelps. An Evergreen Book. New York: Grove Press, 1950.

  5. Behn, Aphra. The Ten Pleasures of Marriage; and The Second Part: The Confession of the New Married Couple. 1682-1683. Ed. John Harvey. London: The Navarre Society Limited, 1950

  6. Behn, Aphra. Oroonoko: or, the Royal Slave. A True History. 1688. Introduction by Lore Metzger. The Norton Library. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1973.

  7. Behn, Aphra. Oroonoko: An Authoritative Text; Historical Backgrounds; Criticism. 1688. Ed. Joanna Lipking. A Norton Critical Edition. New York & London: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997.

  8. Behn, Aphra. Love Letters between a Nobleman and His Sister. 1684-87. Introduction by Maureen Duffy. Virago Modern Classic, 240. London: Virago Press Limited, 1987.

  9. Cameron, W. J. New Light on Aphra Behn: An investigation into the facts and fictions surrounding her journey co Surinam in 1663 and her activities as a spy in Flanders in 1666. University of Auckland Monograph, 5. Auckland: Wakefield Press Ltd., 1961.

  10. Duffy, Maureen. The Passionate Shepherdess: Aphra Behn, 1640-89. London: Jonathan Cape, 1977.

  11. Hahn, Emily. Aphra Behn. London: Jonathan Cape, 1951.


  12. John Bunyan (1628-1688)

  13. Bunyan, John. The Complete Works. Introduction by John P. Gulliver. Illustrated Edition. Philadelphia; Brantford, Ont.: Bradley, Garretson & Co. / Chicago, Ills.; Columbus, Ohio; Nashville, Tenn.; St. Louis, Mo.; San Francisco, Cal.: Wm. Garretson & Co., 1881.

  14. Bunyan, John. The Pilgrim’s Progress from This World to That Which Is To Come: Delivered Under the Similitude of a Dream. London: The Religious Tract Society, n.d. [1877].

  15. Bunyan, John. The Pilgrim’s Progress. Ed. Roger Sharrock. 1965. The Penguin English Library. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975.

  16. Bunyan, John. Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners and The Pilgrim’s Progress from this World to that which is to come. 1666, 1678, & 1684. Ed. Roger Sharrock. 1962 & 1960. Oxford Standard Authors. London: Oxford University Press, 1966.

  17. Bunyan, John. Grace Abounding & The Life and Death of Mr Badman. 1666 & 1680. Introduction by G. B. Harrison. An Everyman Paperback. Everyman’s Library, 1815. 1928. London: J. M. Dent & Sons / New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1969.

  18. Bunyan, John. The Life and Death of Mr. Badman. 1680. Introduction by Bonamy Dobrée. The Worlds’ Classics, 338. London: Humphrey Milford / Oxford University Press, 1929.

  19. Bunyan, John. The Holy War Made by King Shaddai upon Diabolus To regain the Metropolis of the World or, The Losing and Taking Again of the Town of Mansoul. 1682. Ed. Wilbur M. Smith. The Wycliffe Series of Christian Classics. Chicago: Moody Press, 1948.

  20. Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne [nee Lucas] (1623–1673)

  21. Cavendish, Margaret. The Blazing World and Other Writings. 1666. Ed. Kate Lilly. 1992. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1994.


  22. John Cleland (1709-1789)

  23. Cleland, John. Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure. 1749. Ed. Peter Sabor. The World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.


  24. Daniel Defoe (c.1660-1731)

  25. Defoe, Daniel. The Shakespeare Head Edition of the Novels and Selected Writings of Daniel Defoe. 1927-28. Oxford: Basil Blackwell / Stratford-upon-Avon: The Shakespeare Head Press / London: William Clowes & Sons Limited, 1974.
    • The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe of York, Mariner. 1719. Vol. I.
    • The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe of York, Mariner. 1719. Vol. II.
    • The Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe. 1719. Vol. III.
    • The Fortunate Mistress. 1724. Vol. I.
    • The Fortunate Mistress. 1724. Vol. II.
    • A Journal of the Plague Year. 1722.

  26. Defoe, Daniel. The True-Born Englishman and Other Writings. 1700. Ed. P. N. Furbank & W. R. Owens. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1997.

  27. Defoe, Daniel. The Storm. 1704. Ed. Richard Hamblyn. London: Allen Lane, 2003.

  28. Defoe, Daniel. The Life and Adventures of Robinson Crusoe. 1719. Ed. Angus Ross. 1965. Penguin English Library. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970.

  29. Defoe, Daniel. Robinson Crusoe / The Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe. 1719. Introduction by Frederick Brereton. Collins Classics. London & Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd., 1961.

  30. Defoe, Daniel. Robinson Crusoe: The Life and Strange Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe of York, Mariner; The Further Adventures of Robinson Crusoe. 1719. Introduction by Guy N. Pocock. 1945. Everyman’s Library, 1059. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. / New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1966.

  31. Defoe, Daniel. The Life, Adventures and Piracies of the Famous Captain Singleton. 1720. Introduction by James Sutherland. 1963. Everyman’s Library, 1074. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. / New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1969.

  32. Defoe, Daniel. Captain Singleton. 1720. Ed. Shiv K. Kumar. Oxford English Novels. Ed. James Kinsley. 1969. London: Oxford University Press, 1973.

  33. Defoe, Daniel. Memoirs of a Cavalier. 1720. Introduction by G. A. Aitken. 1908. Everyman’s Library, 283. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. / New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1933.

  34. Defoe, Daniel. A Journal of the Plague Year: Being Observations or Memorials of the Most Remarkable Occurrences, as well Public as Private, which Happened in London during the Last Great Visitation in 1665. Written by a Citizen who Continued all the while in London. Never made Public Before. 1722. Ed. Anthony Burgess & Christopher Bristow. Introduction by Anthony Burgess. 1966. Penguin English Library. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1978.

  35. Defoe, Daniel. The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders &c. Who Was Born in Newgate, and During a Life of Continued Variety for Threescore Years, Besides Her Childhood, was Twelve Year a Whore, Five Times a Wife (Whereof Once to Her Own Brother), Twelve Year a Thief, Eight Year a Transported Felon in Virginia, at Last Grew Rich, Lived Honest & Died a Penitent, Written From Her Own Memorandums. 1722. Foreword by Oliver St. John Gogarty. Black & White Illustrations by Arthur Wragg. 1948. London: Rockliff Publishing Corporation Limited, 1950.

  36. Defoe, Daniel. The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders. 1722. Ed. Juliet Mitchell. Penguin English Library. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1978.

  37. Defoe, Daniel. Roxana: The Fortunate Mistress. 1724. Ed. Jane Jack. 1964. Oxford English Novels. London: Oxford University Press, 1969.

  38. Defoe, Daniel [as ‘Captain Charles Johnson’]. A General History of the Pyrates. 1724. Ed. Manuel Schonhorn. 1972. Dover Maritime Books. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1999.

  39. Defoe, Daniel. A Tour Through the Whole Island of Great Britain. 1724-26. Ed. Pat Rogers. Penguin English Library. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971.

  40. Hazlitt, William, ed. The Works of Daniel De Foe, with a Memoir of His Life and Writings. 2 vols. London: John Clements, 1840-41.


  41. Henry Fielding (1707–1754)

  42. Fielding, Henry. The History of the Adventures of Mr. Joseph Andrews and of His Friend Mr. Abraham Adams & An Apology for the Life of Mrs. Shamela Andrews. 1741 & 1742. Ed. Douglas Brooks. 1970. Oxford English Novels. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.

  43. Fielding, Henry. A Journey from This World to the Next. 1743. Introduction by Claude Rawson. Everyman’s Library, 1112. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. / New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1973.

  44. Fielding, Henry. Jonathan Wild & The Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon. 1743 & 1755. Ed. Douglas Brooks. Introduction by A. R. Humphreys. 1932. Everyman’s Library, 1877. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. / New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1973.

  45. Fielding, Henry. The History of Tom Jones. 1749. Ed. R. P. C. Mutter. Penguin English Library. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966.

  46. Fielding, Henry. The History of Amelia. 1752. Illustrated by George Cruickshank. 2 vols. Classic Novels. London: Hutchinson & Co., n.d.

  47. Fielding, Henry. The Works: Complete in One Volume, with Memoir of the Author, by Thomas Roscoe. London: Henry Washbourne et al., 1840.


  48. Sarah Fielding (1710–1768)

  49. Fielding, Sarah. The Adventures of David Simple, and The Adventures of David Simple, Volume the Last. 1744 & 1753. Ed. Linda Bree. Penguin Classics. London: Penguin, 2002.

  50. Fielding, Sarah. The Governess, or, Little Female Academy. 1749. Ed. Jill E. Grey. The Juvenile Library. Ed. Brian W. Alderson. London: Oxford University Press, 1968.


  51. Henry Mackenzie (1745–1831)

  52. Mackenzie, Henry. The Man of Feeling. 1771. Ed. Brian Vickers. 1967. Oxford English Novels. London: Oxford University Press, 1970.


  53. Sir Thomas More (1478-1535)

  54. More, Thomas. Utopia. 1516. Trans. Paul Turner. 1965. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972.


  55. Thomas Nashe (1567-c.1601)

  56. Nashe, Thomas. The Unfortunate Traveller and Other Works. Ed. J. B. Steane. The Penguin English Library. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972.


  57. Samuel Richardson (1689-1761)

  58. Richardson, Samuel. Pamela; or Virtue Rewarded. 1740-41. Introduction by M. Kinkead-Weekes. 1962. 2 vols. Everyman’s Library, 683-4. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. / New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1969.

  59. Richardson, Samuel. Clarissa, or the History of a Young Lady. 1747-48. Ed. Angus Ross. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985.

  60. Richardson, Samuel. The History of Clarissa Harlowe. 1747-48. Introduction by John Butt. 4 vols. Everyman’s Library, 882-5. 1932. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. / New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1962.

  61. Richardson, Samuel. The History of Sir Charles Grandison. 1753-54. Ed. Jocelyn Harris. 3 vols. Oxford English Novels. London: Oxford University Press, 1972.


  62. Tobias George Smollett (1721–1771)

  63. Smollett, Tobias. Roderick Random. 1748. Introduction by H. W. Hodges. Everyman’s Library, 790. 1927. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. / New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1964.

  64. Smollett, Tobias. The Adventures of Peregrine Pickle, in which are included Memoirs of a Lady of Quality. 1751. Ed. James L. Clifford. 1964. Oxford English Novels. London: Oxford University Press, 1969.

  65. Smollett, Tobias. The Adventures of Ferdinand Count Fathom. 1753. Ed. Damian Grant. Oxford English Novels. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.

  66. Smollett, Tobias. Travels through France and Italy. 1766. Introduction by Thomas Secombe. The World’s Classics, 90. 1907. London: Humphrey Milford / Oxford University Press, 1919.

  67. Smollett, Tobias. The Adventures of Sir Launcelot Greaves & The History and Adventures of an Atom. 1762 & 1769. London: The Waverley Book Company, Ltd., n.d.

  68. Smollett, Tobias. The Expedition of Humphrey Clinker. 1771. Ed. Angus Ross. 1967. Penguin English Library. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975.


  69. Laurence Sterne (1713–1768)

  70. Sterne, Laurence. The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman. 1759-67. Ed. Graham Petrie. Introduction by Christopher Ricks. Penguin English Library. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967.

  71. Sterne, Laurence. A Sentimental Journey through France and Italy by Mr. Yorick, to which are added The Journal to Eliza & A Political Romance. 1768. Ed. Ian Jack. 1968. Oxford English Novels. London: Oxford University Press, 1972.

  72. Sterne, Laurence. The Works: Comprising The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gent., A Sentimental Journey through France and Italy, Sermons, Letters, &c., with A Life of the Author, Written by Himself. London: Henry G. Bohn., 1853.

  73. Sterne, Laurence. Memoirs of Mr. Laurence Sterne; The Life & Opinions of Tristram Shandy; A Sentimental Journey; Selected Sermons and Letters. Ed. Douglas Grant. The Reynard Library. London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1950.

  74. Traugott, John, ed. Laurence Sterne: A Collection of Critical Essays. Twentieth Century Views. Englewood Clifs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968.


  75. Jonathan Swift (1667-1745)

  76. Swift, Jonathan. Gulliver’s Travels and Selected Writings in Prose & Verse. Ed. John Hayward. The Compendious Series. London: The Nonesuch Press / New York: Random House, 1934.

  77. Swift, Jonathan. The Annotated Gulliver's Travels: Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift. 1726 / 1734 / 1896. Ed. Isaac Asimov. New York: Clarkson N. Potter, Inc. / Publishers, 1980.

  78. Swift, Jonathan. Journal to Stella. Ed. Harold Williams. 1948. 2 vols. Oxford English Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.

  79. Swift, Jonathan. The Poems. Ed. Harold Williams. 1937. Second ed. 1958. 3 vols. Oxford English Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.

  80. Swift, Jonathan. Poetical Works. Ed. Herbert Davis. Oxford Standard Authors. London: Oxford University Press, 1967.

  81. Swift, Jonathan. Satires and Personal Writings. Ed. William Alfred Eddy. 1932. Oxford Standard Authors. London: Oxford University Press, 1967.

  82. Nokes, David. Jonathan Swift: A Hypocrite Reversed. A Critical Biography. 1985. Oxford Lives. London: Oxford University Press, 1987.


  83. Anthologies & Secondary Literature

  84. Birkett, Sir Norman, ed. The Newgate Calendar: With Contemporary Engravings. 1951. London: The Folio Society, 1993.

  85. Birkett, Lord, ed. The New Newgate Calendar. 1960. London: The Folio Society, 1993.

  86. Henderson, Philip, ed. Shorter Novels. Volume 1: Elizabethan and Jacobean. Thomas Deloney: Jack of Newberie and Thomas of Reading; Robert Greene: The Carde of Fancie; Thomas Nashe: The Unfortunate Traveller. 1597, 1600, 1587, & 1594. Introduction by George Saintsbury. 1929. Everyman’s Library, 824. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. / New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1943.

  87. Henderson, Philip, ed. Shorter Novels. Volume 2: Jacobean and Restoration. Emmanuel Ford: Ornatus & Artesia; Aphra Behn: Oroonoko; Henry Neville: The Isle of Pines; William Congreve: Incognita. 1634, 1688, 1668, & 1713. Everyman’s Library, 841. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. / New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1930.

  88. Kerby-Miller, Charles, ed. The Memoirs of the Extraordinary Life, Works, and Discoveries of Martinus Scriblerus. Written in Collaboration by the Members of the Scriblerus Club: John Arbuthnot, Alexander Pope, Jonathan Swift, John Gay, Thomas Parnell & Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford. 1950. New York: Russell & Russell, 1966.

  89. McBurney, W. H., ed. Four Before Richardson: Selected English Novels, 1720-1727. Luck at Last, or the Happy Unfortunate, by Arthur Blackamore; The Jamaica Lady, or the Life of Bavia, by W. P; Philidore and Placentia, or L’Amour trop Delicat, by Eliza Haywood; The Accomplished Rake, or Modern Fine Gentleman, by Mary Davys. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1963.

  90. Painter, William. The Palace of Pleasure: Elizabethan Versions of Italian and French Novels from Boccaccio, Bandello, Cinthio, Straparola, Queen Margaret of Navarre, and Others. 1566-67, 1575. Ed. Joseph Jacobs. 1890. 3 vols. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1966.

  91. Watt, Ian. The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson and Fielding. 1957. Peregrine Books. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966.



Samuel Richardson: Pamela (1741)




  1. Folktale roots: characterised by excessive patterning and repetition of motifs (as seen in the Eastern Framestory Tradition)


  2. Confessional: the various forms of auto/biography (of which there are many different potential models in classical literature: Xenophon's Cyropaedia, Plutarch's Parallel Lives, Caesar & Augustus's third-person autobiographies, The Confessions of St. Augustine, to name just a few ...)


  3. Poetry anthology: with commentaries on the individual poems becoming chapters (seen in the Japanese Tales of Ise - as well as Egil's Saga in Iceland)


  4. Medieval romance: characterised by C. S. Lewis (in The Allegory of Love) as "Ovid misunderstood:" earnest, Christian mis-applications of Ovid's witty urban satirical epics, epistles and tales


  5. Historiography: as it evolves into historical fiction (the shift from Ari's Lándnámabók and Íslendingabók to the first, anonymous Sagas of Icelanders



  6. Wu Ch'eng-en: Journey to the West

  7. Religious narratives: stories of saints and demons as a backdrop for the satirical fantasy (and realism) of the Chinese novel



  8. Henry Fielding: Tom Jones (1749)

  9. Fielding's (secular) "comic epic in prose": a kind of culmination of the Cervantine tradition of deliberately parody of absurd literary excess as a vehicle for (so-called) "realism"






Tuesday, February 24, 2009

How not to write a Literary Essay:


Approaches to the Book of Iris

[The Book of Iris (AUP, 2002)]

A year or so after it came out, I bought a second-hand copy of The Book of Iris (2002), Auckland University Press’s massive hardback life of the New Zealand writer Iris Wilkinson (aka Robin Hyde). I was – mildly – curious about Hyde, but before long the nature of the book itself began to intrigue me even more.

It had two authors: Gloria Rawlinson, a precocious child poet who’d befriended Hyde in the 1930s; and Derek Challis, Iris Wilkinson’s son. Not that this is in any way unusual – what did seem surprising was the degree to which the latter seemed anxious to distance himself from the former. Rawlinson had died leaving her draft biography stalled and incomplete. Challis had then taken up the task, but included a preface denouncing not only his collaborator’s errors of tone and emphasis, but also her downright distortions and lies.

This created the interesting spectacle of a book at war with itself, I thought – a text which had no stable sense of being except in the dialectic struggle between two wills.



Anyway, I was shooting my mouth off to that effect one day to a group of people which included my Massey university colleague Mary Paul, then engaged in editing a book of Hyde’s copious, overlapping autobiographical writings. She suggested I write an essay about it.

It sounded like a fine idea, but since writing such an essay would (inevitably) involve having to reread and annotate the 800-pages-odd Book of Iris, I didn’t immediately take up the challenge. Easier, I thought, to keep on talking about it than face the stiffer task of documenting my assertions.

Then, a short time later, Mary decided to put together a book of critical essays on Hyde (which subsequently appeared as Lighted Windows (Otago UP, 2008)), and asked me specifically to contribute a piece on The Book of Iris to the volume.



There’s a curious hierarchy in the ranking of pieces of Academic writing. On the one hand, there’s the refereed article or review, in a peer-reviewed journal. That’s what counts for most in the glorified crap-shoot which is the PBRF (Performance-Based Research Fund): the points-system which governs how much university departments can expect to get off the government to aid them in their research activity.

Without peer-review, the value of random bits of writing declines sharply. That’s one reason why an essay in a critical book issued by a university press seemed quite a desirable thing to me. One must get ahead, after all – all universities operate on the “publish or perish” model, but exactly where you publish is now more crucial even than it was before 2003, the year the PBRF system came into operation here in New Zealand.

So back to The Book of Iris I went, pencil in hand, looking for good material for my piece. It wasn’t easy to force my way through it again. Gloria Rawlinson was an appallingly verbose prose writer. Her own thousand-odd-page draft was still far from complete. With additions and revisions by Derek Challis, the typescript grew (apparently) to almost 1200 pages. AUP’s editors managed to cut this back by almost a third, but even so it’s a colossal book, hard to find things in.

What’s more, I think even the book’s biggest fans would agree that there are very important aspects of Hyde’s life which are examined pretty superficially in it – the precise date and circumstances of the birth of Hyde’s first child in Sydney, for example. A lot of unanswered questions remain about that event.



My initial plan had been to concentrate on the somewhat Borgesian implications of having two authors at war over the ownership of one book, a dispute which could only be solved by the death of one or other of them. Hence my choice of title for the essay:

The Art of Postmodern Biography:
Derek Challis, Gloria Rawlinson and The Book of Iris

[2005-6]

This is the abstract I wrote at that point, when the whole project seemed easily attainable and without significant conceptual flaws:

The Book of Iris was a long time in the making. Derek Challis, Robin Hyde’s son and the book’s co-author, pinpoints its beginnings in 1947. That’s when he wrote to Gloria Rawlinson, Hyde’s friend and literary ally, suggesting the project. Fifty-five years later, in 2002, Auckland University Press published the results of their joint labours as an 800-page authorised biography.

This time-lag in itself would suggest that certain difficulties had arisen with the project. When, however, one reads in Challis’s fascinating preface that his co-author (now dead) was untrustworthy in her use of original sources, had a consistent tendency to exaggerate her own importance in Robin Hyde’s life, and was also prone to long, irrelevant digressions, then it’s rather difficult to see how the book ever came about at all.

Besides this, however, he goes on to say, her text has many merits. By correcting the inaccuracies, cutting out the digressions, and adding a few bits here and there, all can be easily set right.

This paper tries to examine both this set of assumptions and the end-results of Rawlinson’s and Challis’s labours: the uniquely self-questioning and self-undermining textual artefact which they have created between them.

Mary approved this basic overview, so off I went.

The trouble was, when I finally got down to it, I ran straight into writer’s block. Not since I was writing my Doctoral thesis back in the late eighties have I found prose composition such a chore. Nothing fell easily into place. I’d got used to trying to write punchy reviews and editorials – journalistic pieces where the strong expression of interesting opinions is the principal criterion of merit. By contrast, a more measured, “Academic” style now held few charms for me.

Anyway, I eventually dragged my way through it. It began with what I thought was a striking analogy between New Zealand and Russian literature, a weird precedent I’d been wanting to fit in somewhere for ages:

“A book that does not contain its counterbook is considered incomplete.”
– Jorge Luis Borges, Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius

In 1971, Andrew Field, Vladimir Nabokov’s first English-language biographer, edited a book called The Complection of Russian Literature, a collection of essays by Russian writers about each other’s work. The piece which concerns us here is by Ivan Goncharov: an account of his various meetings with Ivan Turgenev.

In it Goncharov, author of Oblomov (archetype of the futile, idle “superfluous man” in Russian literature), accuses his fellow-novelist Turgenev of systematic plagiarism on a grand scale. Essentially everything that the latter published, with the exception of a few early sketches, was based on recollections of what Goncharov had told him he was planning to write. It’s a damning indictment, full of circumstantial detail.

After I’d finished reading this essay, I looked in the back to check where it had first appeared, only to find the following note:

Obviously the work which is presented here for the first time … An Extraordinary Story, requires some accompanying explanation. … [It] is briefly mentioned in Prince Mirsky’s history [of Russian Literature] as a “psychopathic document,” but the internal evidence of several details in his references show that Mirsky had not actually read the document himself. The book itself, it should be stressed, is written by a demonstrably mentally ill person. My usage of his argument has purposely sought to present Goncharov’s claim in a more reasonable light [my italics].(Field, 274-75)

In other words, Goncharov was “demonstrably” mad when he wrote the “manuscript, of book length (nearly two hundred pages)” which Field has edited down to sixteen more “reasonable” pages. And what is his justification for this procedure?

… while Goncharov was in a paranoiac state while writing An Extraordinary Story, there is now at least very strong circumstantial evidence … that Turgenev did plagiarise from him, and – a chicken-and-egg problem – Goncharov’s mental collapse may have resulted from Turgenev’s action. (Field, 275)

The “very strong circumstantial evidence” turns out, on examination, to be a piece by the Soviet critic Leonid Grossman, also reprinted by Field, which purports to show that Turgenev’s famous play “A Month in the Country” resembles – slightly – an earlier drama of Balzac’s, “La Marâtre,” albeit “freed of melodrama” (Field, 152).

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that everyone isn’t against you … That, at any rate, appears to be Field’s reasoning. Shorn of 180 or so pages of “mentally ill” ravings, Goncharov clearly had a pretty good case. After all, why shouldn’t one of the greatest European novelists, one of the finest stylists in the Russian language, have stolen all of his plots from a few conversations with his contemporary Goncharov? The fact that (as Field, to do him justice, acknowledges) “his other two novels besides Oblomov (1859), A Common Story (1847) and The Precipice (1869) are distinctly inferior,” is neither here nor there. It wasn’t jealousy at Turgenev’s greater success as a writer that drove him mad, but the plagiarism itself.

It’s a little hard to weigh up these accusations and counter-accusations at such a distance in time. Goncharov may indeed have been right. But there is a little thing called burden of proof. If a “demonstrably mentally ill person … in a paranoiac state” accuses someone else of a crime, then there’s at least a strong supposition that the accusation may be baseless. It is, in any case, completely indefensible to tidy up the accusation, eliminating its more obviously “psychopathic” features in order to “purposely … present (the) claim in a more reasonable light.”

The career of Andrew Field contains many similar examples of playing fast-and-loose with what he was pleased to call the “wombat work” of conventional scholarship, culminating in a controversy in the TLS with Nabokov’s subsequent biographer, Brian Boyd, where Field proved unable to recall the precise year of the Russian Revolution. Look up his name in the index to Vladimir Nabokov: The American Years if you wish to savour more of Field’s enormities.*

[* “The number of absurd errors, impossible statements, vulgarities and inventions is appalling.” – Nabokov on the first draft of Field’s Nabokov: His Life in Part (1977), quoted in Boyd, 611. See further the three pages of notes (723-26) Boyd devotes to substantiating Nabokov’s statement.]

After that, I went into a more straightforward account of Challis’s introduction to his edited form of Rawlinson’s biography, pointing out the difficulties inherent in something which he seems to see as a very simple procedure: the “adaptation” of one author’s text by another with significantly different intentions.

Unfortunately, as everyone who read it was quick to point out, my Russian opening had the effect of equating Rawlinson with the “demonstrably mentally ill” Goncharov, and Derek Challis with the “absurdly error-prone” Andrew Field. One of the essay’s eventual referees put it best, I think:

in its current form, the discussion relies heavily on the force of juxtaposition. Talking about Andrew Field allows the writer to make points about the perils of biography economically, and makes for interesting reading, but the move to Challis and Rawlinson seems to invite judgment by innuendo.

Quite so. The other thing that everyone agreed on was the timing of the piece:

The main problem is that it half reads like a book review when the time for a review has long past, and half reads like a sketch for a more extended consideration.

That, too, was a point I found difficult to dispute.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I’d spent quite a lot of time on the piece already by this time, and the prospect of a more-or-less guaranteed book publication made it seem worth taking the time to remodel it, so (with the help of various suggestions from Mary Paul) I proceeded to do so. I’d written the original between December 2005 and January 2006. It took most of July 2006 to revise it.

I toned down the feisty, reviewer’s language everyone seemed to object to so much, added a lot more examples from the field of literary biography in general, and sent it back, retitled: “Two Faces of Biography: Derek Challis, Gloria Rawlinson & The Book of Iris.” (This is more-or-less, give or take a few phrases here and there, the text attached to the end of this introduction).

And so the matter rested.



But then the book itself started to undergo strange changes. First the decision was made to drop the planned reprints of “classic” critical essays about Hyde (many of which were already available online on the Robin Hyde page at the New Zealand Electronic Poetry Centre, in any case).

After that, the publisher expressed the view that my piece in particular was too much like a book review, and should really be presented as such somewhere. It was suggested that I send it to Landfall – hardly a likely venue for a review of a book which had already, by then, been out in the world for five years! By now it was December 2007.

And that was that. After two years of work on an essay I never particularly wanted to write in the first place, my precise gain was nothing – no publication, no PBRF points, nada.

So my next step was to submit it to the Journal of New Zealand Literature, where I’d already had work published (albeit under the beneficent regime of Ken Arvidson). I still hankered after seeing my Russian comparison in print, though, so it was the first form of the essay which I submitted to them (somewhat foolishly, in retrospect).

Back it came, after a couple of months, with two referee’s reports pointing out:
  1. how much like a review it sounded (a tone only forgivable at the moment of the book’s original appearance);
  2. the undesirability of even seeming to equate Rawlinson and Challis with the lunatic Goncharov and unscrupulous Field.

They had a point, I had to admit.

I then submitted to them the second, revised version of the essay, which started to grind its way through the same set of processes, only (I think I was right in detecting) with slightly greater auguries of success.



At this stage I was forced to rethink my whole attitude towards the piece. I’d long ago ceased to feel any fondness for it (though I did – and do – still agree with its main points, and, indeed, the tone in which those points are made). I started to wonder how I’d feel at being compared to the error-prone, scholarly buffoon Andrew Field.

The occasion of these musings was what seemed to me an exceptionally bitchy and patronising review of my anthology Classic New Zealand Poets in Performance, which happened to appear at this moment (coincidentally?) in the pages of JNZL. My indignation at being accused of basic “uncoolness” by the reviewer reminded me of how personally one tends to take such – basically footling and fatuous – aspersions. Doing the same thing to Derek Challis, albeit in muted form, in the very next issue of the journal, suddenly looked like a very uncool thing to do indeed.

And I’d started to think, too, that the lessons I’d learned through the long process of conceiving, composing, revising and editing the wretched thing were possibly more valuable than the piece itself: the piece as it stood, that is.

Why not play Derek Challis to my own Gloria Rawlinson, I thought? Why not publish the essay with commentary? That way the “perfect, post-modern” self-refuting book could be matched by the self-doubting, self-undermining literary essay.

I don’t know. You can judge the end result for yourselves. In any case, while I’m still fond of my Goncharov / Field anecdote, and still agree with the basic contentions of my belated, beleaguered Book of Iris review, I’ve had a hell of a lot more fun writing this account of their vicissitudes than I ever did composing the essays themselves.




Two Faces of Biography:
Derek Challis, Gloria Rawlinson and The Book of Iris

[2006-7]


I’m told that biography – and popular history, which overlaps with it – is the bestselling non-fictional genre at present. Certainly Geoff Walker, managing editor of Penguin Books in New Zealand, seems to think so. In a talk he gave at a recent university research day he exhorted us all to think small: to write up esoteric aspects of our subjects in an amusing, newsy way. That was the kind of book the public was keen on buying, and the kind (accordingly) publishers were eager to publish.

What Walker presumably had in mind was the immense success of books such as Simon Winchester’s Surgeon of Crowthorne (1998) and Dava Sobel’s Longitude (1995): books which illuminate little-known areas of human achievement – lexicography and navigation, respectively – by focussing on heroic (preferably rather eccentric and isolated) figures within the history of each discipline.

However, Walker also highlighted a dichotomy which goes deeper than the much-trumpeted distinction between Academic and Popular writing. After all, a biography must always be somewhat speculative, even when the materials its subject has left behind are copious beyond belief (as in the case of US Presidential libraries). To be comprehensible to other human beings, a person’s life must be presented in human terms: through their likes, dislikes, achievements, disappointments, loves and hatreds, however esoteric the field they may have flourished in.

What each writer must choose, though, is the angle they are going to take on their subject – either the (so-called) Life and Times approach: some kind of attempt at a comprehensive overview; or the more particular Themed Account: the carefully teased-out threads of one aspect of a life (or lives). The immense detail of Boswell’s Life of Dr Johnson (1791) exemplifies the first approach, the essayistic debate of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives (c.100) the second.

Both Longitude and The Surgeon of Crowthorne clearly fall into the second category. There are fuller studies available both of John Harrison and his invention of the chronometer, and of James Murray’s titanic labours as editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. Nor are they necessarily less readable (K. M. Elisabeth Murray’s Caught in the Web of Words (1977), in particular, is a fascinating book). But the lack of a claim to completeness has served both Winchester and Sobel well. Readers don’t always wish to be edified and educated, but we do all crave to be beguiled and entertained.

For the moment, then, the themed account could be said to be in the ascendant – in publishing terms, at any rate. But there are certain disadvantages to these works. They’re unreliable for reference, for a start. It’s not that their authors are necessarily less fastidious researchers, but simply that the conventions of the form don’t require them to provide full details of their subjects’ ancestry, travels (or lack of same), street addresses, friendships and intellectual (not to mention less respectable) interests. Sometimes such details are all one’s looking for.

One might say, then, that the only thing that makes these biographies possible is the prior (or at least parallel) existence of a more standard biography of the Life and Times variety. Andrew Birkin’s brilliant J. M. Barrie and the Lost Boys (1979), based on his three-part BBC drama series (which in its turn inspired the recent Johnny Depp film Finding Neverland (2004)), depends on the encyclopaedic detail of Denis Mackail’s The Story of J. M. B. (1941) as much for its choice of what not to discuss, as for its decisions on what to foreground.

It’s a truism, but apparently a necessary one, to say that we will always need both types of book. Syntheses and overviews are as important as brilliant individual analyses. The important thing is:
  1. to maintain some kind of balance between them, &
  2. to make sure that they’re not mistaken for each other.

It would be as pointless to criticise Birkin’s book for neglecting to discuss Barrie’s success as a playwright as it would to criticise Mackail for failing to foreground the vexed relations between “Uncle Jim” and the Llewellyn Davies boys.

So how does New Zealand measure up in this respect? In many cases, yes, we have dual biographies of major figures – each of which attempts to supply what the other lacks. Denys Trussell’s Fairburn (1984) is an attempt at a comprehensive Life and Times, whereas James and Helen McNeish’s Walking on My Feet (1983), subtitled “a Kind of Biography,” leans more towards anecdote and oral reminiscence. In the case of James K. Baxter, we have Frank McKay’s 1990 Oxford University Press biography, but also the 1983 memoir by W. H. Oliver (supplemented more recently by Mike Minehan’s “Intimate Memoir” O Jerusalem (2003)). In this country, though, the dichotomy tends to be presented as a distinction between Memoir (avowedly partial and personal), and Biography (an attempt at objective assessment). This, it seems to me, is unfortunate, as it restricts the definition of the Themed Account, thus lending a kind of primary authority to the Life and Times.

The result, in publishing terms, has been a succession – very useful but at times a little overwhelming – of doorstep-sized Lives of New Zealand literary figures, and a paucity of more nuanced studies, such as Dick Scott’s classic Seven Lives on Salt River (1979).

Michael King led the charge with his Frank Sargeson (1995), followed by Wrestling with the Angel: A Life of Janet Frame (2000). Gordon Ogilvie’s Denis Glover: A Life (1999), Keith Ovenden’s A Fighting Withdrawal: The Life of Dan Davin (1996), Ian Richardson’s To Bed at Noon: The Life and Art of Maurice Duggan (1997) and Vincent O’Sullivan’s Long Journey to the Border: A Life of John Mulgan (2003) are further examples of the trend. It’s interesting that this last book came out more or less simultaneously with James McNeish’s Dance of the Peacocks: New Zealanders in Exile in the Time of Hitler and Mao Tse-Tung (2003), a splendidly entertaining group biography of the leftist New Zealanders who went to Oxford in the 1930s.

In this latter case, what seemed to me a complementary overlap (as I explained in my review of the two books, “A Low Dishonest Decade,” WLWE: 39 (2) (2002-3): 143-46) inspired some commentators to criticise McNeish for lacking O’Sullivan’s comprehensive detail – a clear case of mistaking one genre for the other.

The same situation recurred with Rachel Barrowman’s Mason (2003), which, splendidly informative as it is, lacks the energetic sense of indignation of John Caselberg’s Poet Triumphant: The Life and Writings of R. A. K. Mason (2004), published under the pseudonym ‘Asclepius’. Here there had even been an attempt at collaboration between the two authors, which (wisely) was abandoned in favour of two completely separate books.

Barrowman’s book has been much praised, and deservedly. But Caselberg’s was hardly read, or mentioned, at all (again, for more on this matter see my review of Asclepius’ Poet Triumphant in WLWE 40 (2) (2004): 144-47). Why? It is, admittedly, an eccentric book in structure and emphasis, but I think there’s little doubt which of the two Mason himself would have preferred. Caselberg, after all, sees Mason’s life story as a triumph, Barrowman (by and large) as the tale of a tragic might-have-been.

In almost all cases we benefit from having both angles on a life. There can, of course, be as many themed accounts of a multi-faceted individual (or group of individuals: the Inklings, say) as he, she or they had interests. What is less commonly recognised is that the same goes for comprehensive overviews. When will we feel we’ve had enough “definitive biographies” of Dickens, or Henry James, or Hemingway – for that matter, of Katherine Mansfield?

All of which brings me around to the subject of Gloria Rawlinson, Derek Challis, and the only existing full-length biography of Robin Hyde, The Book of Iris.




Where Gloria’s text is an adequate and fair representation of the facts and of the events that determined the course of Iris’s life, I have used it in an almost completely unmodified form, but as far as is possible I have tried to minimise supposition, speculation, misinformation and subjectivity. (xxii)

This is a curious statement. It comes from Derek Challis’s introduction to The Book of Iris, the “definitive” (xxi) – or at any rate authorised – biography of his mother Iris Wilkinson (better known by her pen-name, Robin Hyde). Gloria Rawlinson, his co-author, died in 1995, bequeathing him the text of a 1043-page draft of the biography completed in 1971. It’s natural that the typescript should require some updating and revision after a hiatus of 30 years. However, that was not the only problem with Gloria’s work:

As well as being both overly sentimental and hypercritical the draft manuscript exaggerated the importance of the part played by the Rawlinsons in Iris’s life. She is presented as being dependent on their generosity and goodwill to an extraordinary degree. (xvii)

The charge of being “overly sentimental” is certainly easy to substantiate, even in the edited version of the book. An early passage about Iris’s wanderings around Wellington includes the following:

It was here too that she heard, and never forgot, a mysterious wind-blown music, music without a musician, that vibrated on the air about her before it died away. (13)

Even the justification given for including this romancing about the “mysterious music” wafting around the “rock outcrop … she romantically named ‘the Druids’ stone,’” the claim that “[t]hese romantic memories later haunted the themes and language of her verse” (13) seems unconvincing. One can’t help feeling that such details are being emphasised somewhat beyond their due.

The description of Gloria’s work as “hypercritical” is harder to understand. Perhaps it lies in the numerous throwaway comments about the disorder and waywardness of her private life:

… the depressed mood of the last two months on the Dominion goes some way towards explaining the next sorry chapter in her life, one that distorted and complicated her future. (65)

The “next sorry chapter” in question was the brief affair with Frederick de Mulford Hyde which led to an unplanned pregnancy and, eventually, to her first (stillborn) child Christopher Robin Hyde. Gloria clearly sees the perpetuation of this child’s memory in Iris’s choice of a pen-name as a mistake: “it was an additional burden on her psyche, keeping the image of her lost child constantly before her, and the wound that would, with time, have healed, endlessly open.” (84)

To do Gloria justice, this is little more than a paraphrase of the autobiographical passage quoted immediately afterwards:

And now indeed, I have no cause to be glad that I did it, have I [?], I wish that I had left him to the care of the earth. (85)


It is interesting that the question mark one would normally expect after “have I” is missing. If it had been included, it would have made it clearer that Hyde was asking her audience (in this case, Dr Gilbert Tothill, the psychiatrist for whom she wrote this account) a question. Presumably because her life is so disordered, and thus unlikely to throw lustre on the memory of the dead child, she doubts the wisdom of her choice. In different circumstances she might have thought otherwise: “And yet at times, when I think all’s going to be quite well, I take for Robin Haroun’s words, ‘he might be one of the world’s great men.’”

Self-confidence was clearly a fluctuating factor for Hyde. “I am a writer and a great one,” (90) she reminded her friend Gwen Hawthorn at one of her lowest ebbs.

Alternatively, one could speculate that the “hypercritical” passages Challis complains of may have been pruned away in this version of the biography. There’s really, then, no way to be sure what Gloria Rawlinson found to be so critical of in Hyde’s life. Only Derek Challis – and his editors – can know exactly what he meant. As Iris Wilkinson’s only surviving child, it’s certainly understandable that he wouldn’t wish to perpetuate speculative or defamatory opinions about her.

The third of Challis’s stated reservations about Gloria Rawlinson’s draft biography refers to Rawlinson’s persistent over-emphasis on her own family’s importance in Iris’s life. Rawlinson’s distortion (we’re told) became evident in her introduction to Houses by the Sea, the volume of Hyde’s late poems published in 1952.

Michele Leggott’s verdict on Rawlinson’s editorial procedures is even more damning than Challis’s:

The misrepresentation of Hyde’s words in … Houses by the Sea is disconcerting, especially when the extent of Rawlinson’s ventriloquising in the introduction becomes apparent. Not only the ‘letters’ from China but most of the quotations attributed to Hyde do not match their sources. Simply put, Rawlinson took material from a number of autobiographical sources (including the first version Godwits draft) and reshaped it to fit a story she was making about Hyde that would not let anyone forget Rawlinson. (Leggott, 29)

Leggott, editor of the most substantial collection of Hyde’s poems to dates, Young Knowledge (2003), was forced to disentangle many of the texts she used from Gloria’s interference:

Each poem was transcribed but not checked very thoroughly because there are numerous mistranscriptions of the copytexts … More serious are the places where Rawlinson chose to alter the copytext, sometimes a word here and there, often from a variant version, and sometimes an ‘improvement’ of line, phrase, punctuation or layout without any obvious authorial source … At the macro-level, Rawlinson recomposed some poems by combining two or even three typescripts … or by combining typescript and manuscript … In each case there was a single and complete copytext available. (Leggott, 29-30)

Leggott is careful to point out that while occasional editorial interference was not unusual at the time (or now, for that matter), particularly with poems published in newspapers, Rawlinson’s manipulations go far beyond this: “[John] Schroder occasionally modernised Hyde’s archaisms in copy-editing contribution for newspaper publication (‘thou’ became ‘you’ on a marked-up typescript of ‘Interlude’ now among his papers). But he did not, as Rawlinson did, change ‘thy’ to ‘my’… or rewrite endings as in ‘The Beaches’ V.” (Leggott, 29)

How did Gloria justify all this – to herself, let alone to others? Leggott ventures a theory:

A trace remains of what she thought she was doing in a comment made to Schroder in November 1947 about the draft introduction she had asked him to read: ‘The Conversational Piece was based on actual conversations, so clearly remembered, but I see that it needs clarifying.’ It seems that the ‘Conversational Piece’ disappeared in revision, but Rawlinson’s confidence in her ability to author the past was applied at a less overt and more insidious level throughout. (Leggott, 29)

She began, it seems, as she meant to go on. The past, in her version, was to be presented as Rawlinson recalled/interpreted: “[I]n 1938 the Rawlinsons (and more particularly Rosalie rather than her teenage daughter) in fact received seven letters from Iris, but the text of the introduction to Houses by the Sea suggests that they received twenty-four. In 1939 the Rawlinsons received four letters from Iris, but Gloria claimed to have received eight.” (xix)

Perhaps more disappointing was the way in which messages and comments favourable to the Rawlinsons and strongly suggestive of a dependence on them by Iris were inserted into the quoted text. For example, nowhere in the 10 November letter from Iris to the Rawlinsons does it say ‘please keep on writing as much and as often as you can’… [In] the letter to Rosalie from Iris on 9 June … nowhere does it say ‘I wish you were here so that we could talk it all over. I don’t know what to do. It is all so unsettling’. (xix)

Leaving all these reservations to one side, however, her draft biography has (we’re informed in Challis’s preface) many merits. It’s long and comprehensive (over a thousand pages long, in fact), and – most of the time – gives “an adequate and fair representation of the facts and of the events that determined the course of Iris’s life.” (xxii) All that was necessary to use it in “almost completely unmodified form,” in fact, Challis tells us, was to “minimise supposition, speculation, misinformation and subjectivity.”

I’m not sure that Derek Challis was quite aware just how challenging a statement this is. It’s true that something like this process of pruning and remodelling often takes place when a book is edited, particularly in the case of posthumous publication. However, it seems a little odd (at any rate on the surface) that Challis should feel that an untrustworthy fantasist with an axe to grind might still make an acceptable co-biographer.



“biography tends towards oblique self-portraiture”
– S. Schoenbaum, Shakespeare’s Lives (Schoenbaum, viii)

Is The Book of Iris a reliable Life and Times account of the individual we generally refer to as Robin Hyde? That’s an exceptionally difficult question to answer. There are as many different approaches even to this branch of biography as there are people who write them. While thinking about some of the issues raised by this essay I thought it politic to try to read as generally as possible in the field.

One interesting point struck me almost at once. You don’t have to believe in biography to write one. Ian Kershaw, author of a massively-detailed, two-volumed biography of Adolf Hitler (1998-2000), stresses his own reservations about the form:

There is no little irony … in my eventually arriving at the writing of a biography of Hitler in that I come to it, so to say, from the ‘wrong’ direction. However, the growing preoccupation with the structures of Nazi rule … drove me … to considering whether the striking polarization of approaches could not be overcome and integrated by a biography of Hitler written by a ‘structuralist’ historian – coming to biography with a critical eye, looking instinctively … to downplay rather than to exaggerate the part played by the individual, however powerful, in complex historical processes. (Kershaw, xiii).

Kershaw is, to be sure, writing the life of a public man rather than a writer, but his comments do show that it’s possible to distrust a genre whilst making substantial contributions to it.

Shakespeare’s Lives, by Samuel Schoenbaum, an attempt to analyse Shakespeare’s myriad-minded biographers rather than their perpetually elusive subject (a task somewhat similar to that attempted by Pieter Geyl in his classic Napoleon: For and Against (1967)) constitutes a valuable extended meditation on the genre.

What struck me most forcibly while reading Schoenbaum was the fallibility of scholarly objectivity. One tends to assume that standard Life and Times biographers fall into distinct categories: unreliable cranks with some kind of axe to grind; dry-as-dust chroniclers of facts; and, in between, as a kind of golden mean, reasonably honest researchers.

In fact the lines are far more blurred. The bibliographical works of that notorious first-edition forger Thomas J. Wise are still in use, since (we’re told), if one discounts the obviously fraudulent entries, then the rest is as accurate as one could desire. The same is true of various other pillars of Shakespearean scholarship. J. Payne Collier, for instance, whose forged Elizabethan letters contaminated mid-nineteenth century knowledge of the poet, did valuable pioneering editorial work on Shakespeare’s text.

Not only dishonesty but even eccentricity can have a strong influence on subsequent scholarship. J. B. Halliwell, for instance, had a tendency to issue the results of his antiquarian researches “in editions of one hundred, fifty, thirty, twenty-five, or – not seldom – ten copies only. …. Why not, he was asked, have print runs of five hundred?”

He defended his practice by insisting that the collation, transmission and keeping of accounts encroached severely upon his time … His justification fails to explain why – if he was so eager to economise on time and labour – he would sometimes print twenty-five copies and himself take the trouble to destroy all but ten. A letter … suggests that his true motive was a collector’s desire to create rarities which would afterwards command ‘marvellous’ prices. (Schoenbaum, 290)

And yet, “despite the streak of larceny in his character,” Schoenbaum concludes that “Hallliwell is the greatest of the nineteenth-century biographers of Shakespeare in the exacting tradition of factual research.”

Gloria Rawlinson’s peculiarites as a researcher and a writer begin to look quite unremarkable when matched against such a rogue’s gallery – many of them renowned pillars of English studies.



The question remains, was Gloria Rawlinson a good choice as Robin Hyde’s first biographer?

There are strong reasons for doubting it. Her extreme youth at the time of their friendship – just fifteen when they first met – meant that their relationship can never have been one of equals. Challis points out that: “comments in her letters to a wide variety of friends [make it] clear that Iris thought of Gloria as a brave, loveable, intelligent, remarkably talented young adolescent.”

In both age and experience Iris and Rosalie [Gloria’s mother] were obviously much closer, and in real terms the relationship was naturally centred on the friendship between these two more mature women. (xviii).

Then there was Gloria’s failure to write to her friend all the time she was away from New Zealand. “You must remember I haven’t heard from you for over nine highly peculiar months. Didn’t you want to write to me?” (xviii), complained Hyde in a letter addressed to both of the Rawlinsons. Later, in a letter written from hospital, six months before her suicide, she remarked rather plaintively:

There is no reason in the world why Gloria should be pushed, or push herself, into writing to me if she doesn’t feel like it. She has her own world to make … (xviii)

How such asides must have irritated Gloria when she came to collect the materials for the biography! How she must have cursed herself for neglecting this friendship, now one of the central planks of her professional (and emotional) life. How tempting it must have been to rearrange the evidence a little to suggest the intense exchanges which should have taken place.

Fantasist and liar, schoolgirl with a pash, fiercely ambitious writer … am I talking about Gloria Rawlinson or Robin Hyde? The description could, after all, apply to either of them. And that, paradoxically, is why I think we do get a certain insight into Hyde from Gloria Rawlinson which it’s hard to imagine obtaining from anyone else.

Take, for example, the introduction Hyde contributed to Gloria’s first major book of poems The Perfume Vendor (1935):

Sometimes the verses … argued a long and intimate acquaintance with the fairies. Sometimes there was a poem which seemed to me not childish at all, but lighted with that deep and soft light which belongs to that ‘far countree.’ (245)

“A long and intimate acquaintance with the fairies.” It’s hard to imagine any present-day writer fully empathising with that aspect of Hyde’s own writing. The first hundred or so pages of the Challis/Rawlinson biography record an excursion to a strange, unknown country, where children walk in procession around Druid stones and chat with elves and fairies. It’s the world of Kenneth Grahame and A. A. Milne (it’s not by accident that Hyde called her first, stillborn child “Christopher Robin”) – the world of the Cottingley fairies. As one of Iris’s primary school classmates recorded:

… her oddly different ways, and her ability to see fairies even around school shelter sheds, earned her the pseudonym ‘Dotty Iris,’ which even then I hotly disputed. She was too clever for most of us, although she did not come top. (12)

In many ways it would be easier for us to forget that aspect of Robin Hyde altogether. Most of the fantastic, fairy-haunted stories she composed in the first year of her residence in the “Grey Lodge” in Avondale remain unpublished to this day, but they clearly retained considerable importance for her even while the first drafts of The Godwits Fly were being written. It would be no more acceptable for us to recast her as “purely” proto-modernist than it was for Gloria to garble the texts of her letters and poems in the first place.

There are, of course, drawbacks to Gloria’s choices of what to emphasise:

And then the baby was ready to be born … (76)

That’s a very oblique way of referring to all the uncertainties over just when and where (if?) Christopher Robin Hyde was born, whether Hyde’s mother was present, and the host of other perplexing questions which surround this crucial event in her life. “Afterwards she could never recall the name of the cemetery” (77): a very convenient failure for Hyde – galling, however, for subsequent researchers.

Perhaps to her credit, Rawlinson lacks the instincts of a snoop. So does Derek Challis, on the evidence of the later chapters of the biography, which must be mostly his work. Mind you, I see no evidence that the end product of their joint labours hides anything substantive from the reader, but there certainly are places they have chosen not to dig.

The point I am coming round to is that most of our difficulties with the text published as The Book of Iris dissolve if one simply ceases to regard it as a standard Life and Times biography.

I can certainly see the commercial advantages in marketing it as such – especially given the fact that at least one of her autobiographical memoirs, A Home in this World (1984), was already available to readers. I do feel, nevertheless, that it would have been better to present Gloria Rawlinson’s work as a themed account rather than as an example of the Michael King-style comprehensive biography.

There are, after all, various precedents: hybrid texts with an ambiguous authority exceeding that of any subsequent historian. I’m thinking of the curious case of Thomas Hardy’s autobiography, which he left behind in the form of a third-person text (with his second wife deputed to be ostensible author). This is now available both as an autobiography, with the (very few) cuts and additions Florence Hardy felt compelled to make sedulously edited out, but also in its original form, as a hybrid auto/biography, still with her name on the back.

I’d rather read an edition of Gloria Rawlinson’s My Robin Hyde, heavily edited and annotated by Derek Challis or another scholar, than the seemingly-objective Book of Iris. The fact remains that a more straightforward Life and Times biography of Hyde is still required (and hopefully will be written sometime soon).

It’s true that the monumental size of the Book of Iris virtually guarantees that there are matters which will never again need to be dealt with in such detail, but its main virtue will remain that irreproducible quality of bearing witness. There is something very moving in that letter the seventeen-year old Derek Challis wrote to Gloria Rawlinson in 1947:

I don’t know whether I will ever be able to write […] a biography on my mother but there is tons of time yet and I will try hard. (xiv)

This project has had a long inception and a long gestation. It seems pointless now to condemn it for trying to be something that it’s not: a calculated and considered Life and Times biography, rather than a complex and idiosyncratic themed account of the life of that most multi-faceted of individuals, Iris Wilkinson/Robin Hyde.

Gloria Rawlinson and Derek Challis may not have been the only people who knew her well, but they are the people who remained (for different reasons) most committed to her living memory. What they have to say about her life (jointly and separately) may not have quite the intimate authority of Hardy’s third-person biography, but it will continue to hold an indispensable place beside both the autobiographical writings and the works of future critical biographers.

Works Cited:

Borges, Jorge Luis. Collected Fictions. Trans. Andrew Hurley. 1998. Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition. New York : Penguin, 1999.

Boyd, Brian. Vladimir Nabokov: The American Years. London: Chatto & Windus, 1992.

Challis, Derek & Gloria Rawlinson. The Book of Iris: A Life of Robin Hyde. Auckland: Auckland University Press, 2002.

Edmond-Paul, Mary, ed. Lighted Windows: Critical Essays on Robin Hyde. Dunedin: Otago University Press, 2008.

Field, Andrew. The Complection of Russian Literature: A Cento. 1971. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973.

Geyl, Pieter. Napoleon: For and Against. 1967. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1982.

Hardy, Florence. The Life of Thomas Hardy. 1928 & 1930. London: Studio Editions, 1994.

Hardy, Thomas. The Life and Work of Thomas Hardy: An edition on new principles of the materials previously drawn upon for The Early Life of Thomas Hardy 1840-1891 and The Later Life of Thomas Hardy 1892-1928 published over the name of Florence Emily Hardy. Ed. Michael Millgate. 1984. London: Macmillan, 1989.

Hyde, Robin. The Godwits Fly. 1938. Ed. Gloria Rawlinson. 1970. New Zealand Fiction. Ed. Bill Pearson. Auckland: Auckland University Press, 1974.

Hyde, Robin. The Godwits Fly. Ed. Patrick Sandbrook. 1993. Auckland: Auckland University Press, 2001.

Hyde, Robin. Dragon Rampant. 1939. With an Introduction by Derek Challis. Critical Note by Linda Hardy. Auckland: New Women’s Press, 1984.

Hyde, Robin. Houses by the Sea & The Later Poems of Robin Hyde. Ed. Gloria Rawlinson. Christchurch: Caxton Press, 1952.

Hyde, Robin. A Home in This World. Ed. Derek Challis. Auckland: Longman Paul, 1984.

Kershaw, Ian. Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris. 1998. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2001.

Leggott, Michele, ed. Young Knowledge: The Poems of Robin Hyde. Auckland: Auckland University Press, 2003.

Ross, Jack. “A Low Dishonest Decade: Review of James McNeish, Dance of the Peacocks: New Zealanders in Exile in the Time of Hitler and Mao Tse-Tung (Auckland: Vintage, 2003) & Vincent O’Sullivan, Long Journey to the Border: a Life of John Mulgan (Auckland: Penguin (NZ) Ltd., 2003).” WLWE: World Literature Written in English (UK) 39 (2) (2002-3): 143-46.

Ross, Jack. “Review of ‘Asclepius,’ Poet Triumphant: The Life and Writings of R. A. K. Mason (1905-1971) (Wellington: Steele Roberts, 2004) & Lawrence Jones, Picking up the Traces: The Making of a New Zealand Literary Culture 1932-1945 (Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2003).” WLWE 40 (2) (2004): 144-47.

Schoenbaum, Samuel. Shakespeare’s Lives: New Edition. 1970. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.