Henry James in The Portrait of a Lady
Marilyn R. Chandler’s response to the preface of The Portrait of a Lady in which James describes the ‘house of fiction’ highlights the social and political importance that buildings play within this novel. The houses depicted within The Portrait of A Lady truly reflect the “moral values, political orthodoxy’s, structures of social intercourse and notions of privacy and public life” of individual characters and indeed differences within the various cultures explored within the text. In the preface to the novel James describes Isabel as being the “corner stone” on which he erected the structure of The Portrait of a Lady. This view of Isabel encourages the reader to frame the heroine within the context of each individual house and allows the reader to evaluate her responses to the differing situations - which is what James describes as being the purpose of the novel in the Preface. Isabel is quick to adopt, or adapt to, the political notions and social mannerisms which each house dictates.
The Portrait of a Lady presents a novel which is fascinated by the changing ideas of space and mobility. The characters race from country to country, from continent to continent over vast expanses of space. The new possibilities of travel which the twentieth century invites, allows the characters to defy the limitations which were imposed within their static society. The possibilities of defying geography parallels other aspects of this altering society - the individual is no longer confined in the metaphorical, as well as physical sense.
As we learn early on in A Portrait of a Lady, Isabel Archer appreciates her physical freedom as we witness her traversing Europe, but also in the sense of liberation from her social expectations as a young woman.
At the beginning of the novel we acknowledge that the barriers of the class system are breaking down, and the mallet which is destroying these walls within society is the international weapon of money. Touchett "a shrewd American banker" is residing within an English stately home - the old values which determined privilege amongst the upper classes are being displaced by the new international aristocracy. In an attempt to protect themselves from the ever threatening vulgarity of public advances, the upper classes ensconce themselves firmly within their own luxurious houses creating barriers consisting of manners, taste and expensive living. Surrounding themselves within an artificial society of tasteful furniture and social rituals, characters such as Osmond try to comfort and protect themselves against the mass tide of change. We recognise within many of the characters at a very early stage a desire to keep society the same. This fear of change is reflected in the conversations which discuss changes in architecture as Isabel reveals when in conversation with Lord Warburton:
"'Ah, my dear Miss Archer, old England is a very good sort of country you know! And it will be still better when we have furbished it up a little.'
'Oh don't furbish it, Lord Warburton; leave it alone; I like it this way.'"
James allows us to recognise, through conversation about the architecture that society, as well as buildings are constantly changing. Gardencourt itself is described as having undergone various changes during its past, and yet remains "the most characteristic object in the peculiarly English picture" that James paints.
The world displayed within The Portrait of a Lady would seem to getting smaller. This idea is confirmed by Ralph and Henrietta’s discussion of their possible roles within The Tempest: “I will be Caliban and you shall be Ariel.” Ralph and Henrietta come from opposing culture, and although they share some political or social sentiments, they nevertheless, like Caliban and Areil themselves, are very different people. It is their opposing characters which highlights the proximity of the space in which the action of The Portrait of A Lady takes place. Recognising the world as an island (or indeed as a stage!) James confirms the futility of attempting to aviod or ignore mass social change, and yet that is what we see the characters do.
The constant movement of the characters evokes the question as to why they should travel. Certainly it would seem that Isabel, Osmond, Madam Merle and Mrs Touchett do not travel to encounter foreign people or indeed different cultures.
They are rarely described talking to foreigners or to anyone outside their social class. When the characters are abroad they cling to a representation of former class systems. Isabel visits the opera, galleries and museums. Indeed it may be the visual and plentiful presence of such reassuring history that may entice the characters from the vulgarity of America and the radical opinions expressed by people such as Warburton in England, to the historic and more tasteful country of Italy:
"(Isabel) had always been fond of history; and here was history in the stones of the streets and the atoms of the sunshine. She had an imagination that kindled at the mention of great deeds and wherever she turned great deeds had been acted."
Characters such as Osmond, Mrs. Touchett and Isabel desperately cling to a past. The action which we witness abroad rarely takes place outside their houses and well refined rooms which are recreations of the grandeur within English country houses. According to Osmond however, the reason for travelling would appear to be a opinion which might strengthen his appearance as a "sterile dilettante". When Isabel states that she hasn't "a taste for old lacquer to excuse" her going to Japan, Osmond replies "You have a better excuse - the means of going." So then it would seem that it Osmond at least that the reason to travel is because one has the means. However, Osmond here can not surely be condoning an ostentatious display of wealth - as we have seen money is acknowledged as being the weapon of the working classes. Instead travelling is presented as being an exercise of the upper classes - a social conformity.
Most of characters with the exception of Goodwood and Stackpole it would seem are in Europe fleeing their native country's growing vulgarity which manifests itself in the symptoms of a classless society - symptoms such as money, advertising and industry. Osmond is a character whom lives his life with "a great dread of vulgarity". This vulgarity stems from the elements of society which are generated by the mass population. Money is the object which threatens the class system. As Mr Touchett tells Isabel "there is room everywhere, my dear, if you will pay for it." The attributes of taste formerly unique to the upper classes are now up for sale. Public places within this novel are either dispised or adored by the characters. This is illustrated in Mrs. Touchett's and Henrietta Stackpole's contrasting opinions on American hotels: "Henrietta expressed the opinion that American hotels were the best in the world, and Mrs Touchett recorded a conviction that they were the worst." It is this contrasting opinion of public spaces that provides the political and social tension between such characters as Mrs. Touchett and Henrietta and, Osmond and Goodwood. It is the attitude towards 'space' as being indicative of political and social opinion that allows the concept of ‘the room’ to become the pivotal axis of the novel. These two extreme opinions of the American hotel clarify America's position as representing a world in which a class system is non existent and that privilege is determined by money.
Osmond condemns, like Mrs. Touchett, the vulgarity of the hotel. In Rome, Osmond found the hotel "painfully ugly; the false colours, the sham splendour, made him suffer." Isabel is also described as being out of place within this environment, but not explicitly because of the vulgarity which accompanies public spaces: "Isabel sat alone in a wilderness of yellow upholstery." This description may be indicative that the disintegration of the class system would leave characters such as Isabel abandoned and out of place by modern society. Miss Stackpole however "contracted friendships, in travelling, with great freedom, and had formed many in railway carriages." Casper Greenwood, like Miss Stackpole would seem to value space because of the people who inhabit the area, as he explains in the letter which he writes to Isabel in chapter eleven: "I hated this country because you were not in it. If I like this country at present it is only because you are here." The differing viewpoints of public spaces are indicative of differing social and political opinion. It would seem that while Madame Merle, Isabel and Osmond travel in order to exclude, and run away from society, characters such as Henrietta and Casper Goodwood are seeking to find it. It is also important to note that Henrietta and Casper Goodwood are not associated or framed within the context of a house. As people who characterise the vulgarity and simplicity of the American culture, it is important to understand that they are not presented within the context of lavishly furnished rooms because they have no use for the protection or comfort which such adornment provide.
The paranoia of infiltration and pollution demonstrated by members formerly protected by the class system is certainly reflected in the architecture depicted within the novel. Despite Warburton radical values, there nevertheless exists a moat surrounding his home - a warding off of any attempts made by the ever creeping advancement of social breakdown. While Warburton acknowledges that many people do not like the moat, in key with his radical opinions, Isabel assures him that she likes it - a reflection of her need for physical and social protection. Even the garden at Gardencourt is described as being an extension of the luxurious interior of the house - an internal effort to keep out change. If we examine the space in which most of the action takes part, the rooms are public rooms, such as music rooms, drawing rooms and dining rooms. Taking Osmond's home as an example, we can recognise his home as being very unique, and indeed the epitome of taste - but the emphasis lies not in the welcoming of people to his home, but of exclusion: "To surround his interior with a sort of invidious sanctity, to tantalise society with a sense of exclusion to make people believe that his house was different from every other."
However James encourages the reader to consider the futility of this denial of cultural change which the characters adopt by hiding away in a consciously created environment. We see that when Ralph is ill he tries to "remain in England, indoors, in what he called an artificial climate." Isabel says to Warburton that she was glad to think of Ralph between those thick walls at Gardencourt. Warburton's reply can be read as a commentary on a greater social situation which the characters find themselves: "He was completely alone there; the thick walls were his only company". If we look to this situation as being indicative of a greater whole, we can recognise the futility of the aristocracy’s attempts at physically and socially shutting themselves indoors in order to create their own exclusive society of superior living. Just as Ralph cannot survive by creating an internal environment, neither can the aristocracy.
But nevertheless the dream of being able to survive within an enclosed and barricaded fortress never abandons the characters minds. Indeed, when Isabel first encounters Lord Warburton's house, she thinks of it within the context of a fantasy: "it seemed to Isabel a castle in a fairytale." The idea that it is only by locking one’s self away that one can fantasise about what is outside is illustrated at the beginning of Isabel’s adventures when James describes the door within ‘the office’ which leads onto the streets:
“... the door that had been condemned, and that was fastened by bolts which a particularly slender little girl found it impossible to slide....But she had no wish to look out, for this would have interfered with her theory that there was a strange unseen place on the other side...”
It is only in imprisonment that Isabel can truly exercise her imagination and hope, which as we have seen is central to her being. In contrast to her physical imprisonment, and indeed because of her social and physical imprisonment, her imagination and mind can be free:
“Her imagination was by habit ridiculously active: when the door was not open
it jumped out the window. She was not accustomed to keeping it behind bolts.”
I would personally suggest that James goes further, introducing a sexual tone which accompanies the rather sadistic rejection of her suitors. Isabel is often seen smiling when she is rejecting a man’s advances. She is also pictured as having taken - perhaps understandably - “a horrible delight” in wounding her husband. I would suggest that in may parts of the novel, some of which I have already described, James encourages the reader to consider the idea that Isabel is actually attracted to the idea of physical, social and sexual imprisonment. In Florence, Isabel considers the qualities of her aunt’s house:
“Isabel found that to live in such a place might be a source of happiness - almost excitement. At first it struck her as a sort of prison; but very soon its prison like quality became a merit....”
The “excitement” which is described in that passage can also be found when she examines the gallery in Gardencourt. Her reaction to the portraits is described in what could be considered a very sensual and even sexual manner: “Isabel bending toward one picture after another, indulged in little exclamations and murmurs.” This passage is accompanied by a description of Ralph examining her figure. Portraits within the novel are symbolic of the individual being trapped and enclosed within a repressive social framework. The interest which Isabel displays towards these portraits are indicative of not only her ensconcment within the class system, but also perhaps her unconscious attraction towards repression in a sexual as well as pysical and social context.
But it is perhaps the end of the novel that determines Isabel’s ultimate freedom or not. According to Marilyn Chandler, the end of The Portrait of A Lady is “no less ambiguous than the moment when Ibsen’s Nora slams her husband’s door behind her.” I would disagree. The ending of the novel holds for me many ambiguities. There is of course plenty of evidence to suggest that Isabel has returned to her husband for a life of social and physical repression. She states boldly to Ralph “I think we should accept the consequences of our actions” and she does indeed rebuke the latest advances of Goodwood. But at the end of the novel we, like Goodwood are left in expectation as Henrietta exclaims “Just you wait”. I prefer William Veeder’s school of thinking that describes the end of the novel as being indicative of Isabel’s freedom:
“Her train ride is a timeless suspension. Like figures of Keat’s Grecian Urn, Isabel is preserved in mid motion.”
James at the end of the novel depicts Isabel’s freedom on a train - a public place. She, like James in his life, finds her ultimate freedom in solitude. James does not explicitly reveal that Isabel is returning to her husband, nor that she is doing anything else. Like Goodwood we are left in suspense. We do not know ultimately where Isabel is going to, but just that she is going. Like Keat’s Grecian Urn, James frames Isabel outside the pressures of society, space and time. Isabel is suspended within the portrait which is ironically her freedom.
|