CHARACTER PATTERNS IN HENRY JAMES'S
THE WINGS OF THE DOVE '
AND THE GOLDEN BOWL

Thesis for the Degree of ‘Ph’D- 3 V

MICHIGANSTATEUNIVERSITY ' .1 L

SITA PATRICIASM-ITHMARKS; { -- ’ ' '
.1970

 

   
     

  

LIBRARY

Michigan State
' University

WI'T

Turem

 

This is to certify that the l

thesis entitled

CHARACTER PATTERNS IN HENRY JAMES'S

AND THE GOLDEN BOWL
presented by

Sita Patricia Smith Marks

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Pb. D0 degree in_8.__Ml 1-13

 
   

Major professor

 

0-169

ABSTRACT
CHARACTER PATTERNS IN HENRY JAMES'S

AND THE GOLDEN BOWL

By
Sita Patricia Smith Marks

Character development in Ihg fling; g; the 22 g and
122 Golden Egg; is a function of patterns created by the
moral choices each character makes. Kate Croy and Char-
lotte Stant. who use humanity as a means to an end. sub-
ordinate love to wealth. Each maintains a single. erroneous
choice of action throughout the novel for fear of jeopar-
dizing a social or financial position. Both are limited
and unable to change because they travel conceptually in a
circular pattern. Milly Theale and Maggie Verver. on the
other hand. move in an ever-expanding spiral of increased
perception. As their innocence gives way to eXperience,
they move from initially circular modes of action to the
freedom of knowledge and of responsibility. Both Milly
and Maggie value humanity as an end in itself, and seek
to maximize the dignity and freedom of the others by
acting as choice-givers rather than as role-givers.

Merton Densher and the Prince occupy positions which.
intermediate between the patterns of the protagonists and
antagonists. In the beginning. neither has the moral sense
nor will power to create personal patterns. Densher

subordinates his beauty of trust to Kate's freedom of

Sita Patricia Smith Marks
action, while the Prince gives his allegiance to Charlotte.
Only after each achieves a direct mode of communication with
a spiral character does he adopt a freer. more perceptive
pattern of life. When that occurs, Densher copies Milly's
orientation toward Kate. just as the Prince copies Maggie's
behavior toward Charlotte. Kate, who cannot understand why
Densher should change while she hasn't. accepts Milly's
legacy rather than Densher's loves Charlotte. trapped in-

a marriage of convenience with the wealthy Adam Verver.
returns to the sterility of American City.
Ih§_fligg§_gfi_thg_gggg_and 1g; Golden Egg; propose
alternate fates for their heroines, but in each novel the
antagonists or villains are accorded sympathy and under-
standing by James. Kate and Charlotte can neither be
wholly blamed nor wholly exonerated for their actions; the
pressures of society on the one hand and the weakness of
Densher and the Prince on the other are responsible for the
life-denying patterns which they adopt. Prototype spiral
and circular patterns can be identified in the earlier novels.
although this method of character development only reached
its fruition in the last two completed works. Once the
patterns are defined in each novel, one can trace the
development of James's conception of good and evil from
the modes of innocence and experience to patterns of moral

perception and moral blindness.

"v-

CHARACTER PATTERNS IN HENRY JAMES'S

AND THE GOLDEN BOWL

By
Sita Patricia Smith Marks

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of English
1970

© Copyright by
SITA PATRICIA SMITH MARKS

1971

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincerest appreciation to
Dr. Clyde Henson for his encouragement and generous assis-
tance. I would also like to thank the members of my
committee, Dr. James H. Pickering, and Dr. E. Fred Carlisle,
for their helpful comments and suggestions.

I gratefully acknowledge the support of a National
Defense Education Act Title IV Fellowship which provided
assistance for 1967-1970.

Special thanks go to my husband, Dennis, for his

proofreading and patient consideration.

ii

INTRODUCTION

Chapter
I.

III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROTOTYPE PATTERNS

LEE.

”The Figure in the Carpet”
The Portrait 9;“; Lady

Devouring the Unwary
Milly Theale

Sin and Error
The Dove and the Tiger
Merton Densher

Densher and he Dove

 

GOLDEN BQEL
Charlotte Stant

The Magrg Circle
The Prince

Ihe Personal Relation

Maggie Verver

Iggogenge and Involyemenr
The Barh gr Beneyglenge

iii

15
24
26
31
36
4O
43
48
56
60
62
64
72
76
81
83
88

iv
IV. SUMMARY
FOOTNOTES
BIBLIOGRAPHY

General Referenges
APPENDIX

95
102
106
109
110

INTRODUCTION

Henry James's The Wings 9; Egg 291g and 1h§_Golden
22!; are the culmination of an artistic style in which a
special form of character development plays a major part.

In James's early novels, the international theme was the
main emphasis; as his technical proficiency grew. however.
the characters themselves became his primary subject matter.
By the late 1890's, when the texture of characterization
reached a height of intricacy. internationalism had become a
minor theme. An analysis of character motivation and the
quality of ”felt life" in the ”frail vessels” of James's
later novels reveals the existence of patterns of actions
which not only identify the characters' levels of moral
awareness. but also contribute both theme and structure to
the novels. Certain characters, like Kate Croy in The fling;
gr rhg,ngg. travel conceptually in circles; each action is
prescribed by an initial choice of wealth over love, or by a
decision to use another person as a means to an end. Such
characters. who grow neither intellectually nor morally. are
forced to reaffirm a wrong choice at the expense of personal
satisfaction for fear of jeopardizing a social position.
Others. like Maggie Verver in The Golden B931. behave as if

they were moving in an ever-expanding spiral of increased

1

2

perception: each of their actions indicates a growth of
moral awareness. Since growth by its nature requires change.
these actions do not bind the characters to a limiting mode
of behavior.

The process by which James arrived at his final formu-
lation of presenting the story from the viewpoint of the
characters involved a continual refinement of manner and
theme. Christoff Weglin. in 12; Image gr Europe LE Henry
gaggg. points out that James's writing technique underwent
several distinct changes. In the very early works. ”At
Isella” (1871) and Rgderick Hudsgn (1875), for example.
Europe is portrayed from the then currently fashionable
American viewpoint as a “great gilded” historical ”toy." By
the time ergy,flrllgr (1879) was written, however. James
displayed a new interest in American behavior: he began to
portray europeanized Americans who themselves embody the
fashionable viewpoint. The final change in technique subor-
dinated the earlier concern for national values in a foreign
setting to an emphasis on universal moral conceptions. as in
Th§_fliggg,g£_rh§_gggg.(1902).1 In like manner. James's
handling of character development progressed from a loose
emphasis on 'what happened,‘ as in Roderigk Hudson or The
Egrgpgrng (1878). to the study of a consciousness undergoing
new experiences [122,29rrrgrr‘gr_g,gggyh(1881). for ex-
ample], to the detailed presentation of motive and thought
processes found in 12g,§91deg Bowl (1904).

 

The intensity which James achieves. especially in the

3

later novels. by handling the story from his characters'
points of view is heightened by the way in which he patterns
their actions, thus avoiding the pitfalls of undifferentiated
subjectivity which make Finnegag's flege, for example. so
difficult to read. In presenting the reader with a portion
of the situation through the mind of only one character at
any given time, and in portraying a range of characters whose
levels of moral awareness vary considerably. James sustains
interest and suspense within each novel. He is most per-
spicacious where levels of awareness come into conflict.
Nevertheless. he required a long period of artistic develop-
ment before he was able to motivate adequately not only his
heroes and heroines but his unredeemably blind characters so
that they. as well, are understandable and in some sense
pitiable. It is truly ”in the final justice of his pity.

the completeness of an analysis which enabled him to pity

the most shabby, the most corrupt. of his human actors. that

”2 In the

he ranks with the greatest of creative writers.
early novel The Ameriean (1877). for example, Urbain de
Bellegarde is a dehumanized symbol of aristocratic priggish-
ness; he is an appropriate stage prop for the fashionable
American viewpoint towards Europe. a viewpoint which James
later personally dismissed in order to satirize it. The dry
analytic comments which James makes about Urbain seem to
preserve him as a symbol rather than to flesh him out into a

fully rounded character. Urbain has perfected a ”maintained

attitude”; he has ”a fine nervous dread that something

4
disagreeable might happen if the atmosphere were not kept

'3 James himself comments on the

clear of stray currents.
"queer falsity” of the Bellegardes in the "Preface” to the
novel; he has given an ”affront to verisimilitude” by en-
dowing the family with more pride than nobility. because.
realistically. they would have accepted Newman for the sake
of his fortune.4 Gilbert Osmond. in the slightly later
novel The Portrarr er e_Legy (1881). is a better developed
and more carefully explained villain than Urbain. Osmond.
who has ”plenty of contempt.” has adopted a series of ”tra-
ditions” about women fit only for back-porch gossip. His
egotism. which has detected the last "stupidity. the deprav-
ity. the ignorance of mankind.” feeds on a belief in his own

5 Given

superiority to the "infinite vulgarity of things.”
these presuppositions. his isolation. narrowness, and
aestheticism are fairly motivated. Nevertheless. because
Osmond's mask of indifference is so firmly fixed, not only
for Isabel and Madame Merle but for the reader as well, he
appears unable to feel and to suffer: hence he functions
primarily as the symbol of an over-europeanized eXpatriate
rather than as a suffering antagonist. James's early
”leaning toward melodrama.” in which he plays ”virtuous
Americans off against scoundrelly Europeans.” disappears in
the later novels where he ”no longer sees life in terms of
the innocent and guilty."6

Different from the Bellegardes and Osmond are Kate Croy

 

in The flrggeflefi rhe Dove and Charlotte Stant in The Gelden

S
.ngl. both of whom are too realistically developed to func-
tion simply as symbols, even as symbols of villainy. although
each evolves a dreadful little plan for self-gratification.
In these two late novels, James portrays the morally unaware
as thinking, feeling characters who present excellent
rationalizations for their actions. The qualities which
Kate and Charlotte have in common with their villainous
prototypes are a lack of moral development and stultification
of perspective. Whereas in the early novels James portrays
moral unawareness strictly from a non-sympathetic standpoint
and is concerned primarily with its effect on the morally
aware characters. in the later novels he enlarges his per-
spective to take into account the effect of unawareness on
the unredeemable characters themselves, and to explain the
motivation for morally blind actions from the 'blind' char-
acters' viewpoints as well.

A good deal of Jamesian ambiguity results from the
reader's empathy with characters on two different planes of
awareness. James's heroes and heroines. Isabel Archer. Lam-
bert Strether. and Maggie Verver, for example, are presented
as culpable human beings suffering not from the curse of
sainthood but from a developing moral consciousness. James's
later villains -- Charlotte Stant and Kate Croy -- even-
tually achieve the stature of 'anti-heroes' who are clever.
self-sufficient. and pitiable. Given such a series of
realistically portrayed characters, how is one to distinguish

the good from the bad. the redeemed from the unchanged?

6
Almost all of the major critical articles on James touch on
character development.7 but no one has yet defined develop-
ment in terms of pattern. It is the contention of this
dissertation that James structured his characters in such a
way that his beautifully damned souls willfully perpetuate a
cramped moral outlook. Whatever decisions or movements they
make reinforce an initial bad choice; as a result, they are
caught in a circular pattern of repetitive actions. James's
redeemable characters. on the other hand. learn to increase
their levels of moral awareness and to recognize and change
their limited perspectives. In contrast to the lost souls
who, in Hawthorne's words. violate ”the magnetic chain of
humanity.” these heroes and heroines, guided by love alone.
learn to assume responsibility for the effects of their
actions on others. Throughout the novel, their actions de-
scribe a spiral pattern which indicates a steady progression
to wider and higher levels of awareness. A more extensive
influence of character development on the structure of 222
ELEB§.9£.££2.22!§ and The Gelgen.§eg; is implied by labeling
these patterns of action 'circular' and 'spiral' than would
be suggested by the more common terms 'redeemed' and 'blind'
or 'good' and 'evil.‘ The very progress of the story de-
pends upon an unfolding consciousness. yet the stasis or
limitation which another character exhibits provides a mea-
sure of growth for the Maggies and Millys while rounding out
the end of each novel. Like stakes driven through the body

of a suicide to tame his wandering spirit. Kate and

7
Charlotte are firmly fastened in fixed positions throughout
each novel. When such different patterns of action are as
intimately conjoined as they are in these two later works.
one receives a more than adequate description of the com-
plexity of human relationships. Earlier novels contain
prototypes for the patterns. although the method received
its refinement in the final works.

One way of illustrating this analysis of character de-
velopment is to consider it in relation to Francis Fer-
gusson's comments in his introduction to Aristotle's Peeries.
A character's action. which is ”the motivation from which
deeds spring. . . . may be described metaphorically as the
focus or movement of the psyche toward what seems good to it

at the moment -- a 'movement--of--spirit."'8

Fergusson de-
scribes Oedipus's three changes of action as: ”to discover
how to cure Thebes of the plague”; "to find the slayer of
Laius”: and ”to accept the truth."9 James's spiral char-
acters seem to undergo a threefold 'movement-of-spirit'

which is similar in kind: thus Milly Theale might be de-

scribed as trying redieeover MEMMM- re
mmmnmmmMM-ma . ”(Item
£2§.&IESQ ghee rgeee,ehe_rrgere deeeive her. Maggie Ver-
ver wants to discover how £2.222§.222.'§29512' marriages. re,
Mmmummmmmflmm
mmmWat onh .andmmmemm
rhgee,ehe_rreere deeerve her. On the other hand, James's

circular characters exhibit no such progression towards the

tru‘

int:

lot
re;
Nhi
see
mat
for
of

f 01

J31
tin

of

de-

th

[5’

9X

0f
be

06

8
truth. but rather are restricted to a single unchanging
intention. Kate wants re achTeve wealth egg retain Densher
h! deceiving hTTTy,ehg_hehg L wde . while. similarly. Char-
lotte seeks re marnraTn wealrh EEQ.£§£§1£.ANGELBQ hy gee
9212138 Maggie ehg_hgeh. Thus ”the conscious purpose with
which [human actiodé] start is redefined after each unfor-

"10 but Charlotte and Kate. no

seen contingency is suffered.
matter what the contingency. cannot redefine their purposes
for fear of sacrificing material goals. (Further application
of Fergusson's analysis to James's earlier novels will be
found in the Appendix.)

The following chapter will include a discussion of
James's late method of character development in relation to
the short story. "The Figure in the Carpet.” and an analysis
of prototype spiral and circular character patterns in The
§2££I§l§.2§.é Leer. Chapter II and Chapter III will be
devoted to a detailed investigation of the patterns each of
the major characters creates in IDE.ELEB§.Q£.£E§.22¥2.and
The Gelgen heel. Kate Grey and Charlotte Stant will be
examined as contrasts to the heroines. Milly Theale and
Maggie Verver. who succeed in restructuring the life patterns
of Merton Densher and the Prince. The end of each novel will
be viewed as an outgrowth of the patterns which have pre-

ceded it s

CHAPTER I. PROTOTYPE PATTERNS

”The Figure in the Carpet"

. . . words. after speech. reach

Into the silence. Only by the form. the pattern.
Can words or music reach

The stillness . . .
”Burnt Norton” -- T. 8. Eliot

James has written many stories about the craft of
writing. but none so intriguing or mystifying as “The Figure
in the Carpet.” Did he create the story to illustrate a
general lack of perceptive criticism which made a ”direct

11 or did he wish to

appeal to the intelligence” impossible.
indicate the existence of an unrecognized ”figure” in his
own works? An examination of both possibilities yields in-
sights into the nature of James's patterned character devel-
opment.

The idea for "The Figure in the Carpet” is outlined in
a Nerebggks entry for October 24. 1895. where James notes
the "lovely chance for fine irony on the subject of that
fraternity” of critics inherent in a presentation of the
reactions of an imperceptive reviewer to the ”special beaury
. . . that pervades and controls and animates” the novels

12

of a certain writer. The theme of the story. which was

10

developed almost a year after the unsuccessful performance
of "Guy Domville." bears a resemblance to the special lesson
James drew from his theatrical experimentation. If "the
moral of the whole unspeakable. the whole tragic experience"
of ”Guy Domville" is to teach him "rhe singular Y§122.£2£.§
narrarive rTeh too of the . . . divine principle of the
Scenario." he writes. then he has had a "rare perception";

he has found ”the thing to live by."13

James. like Hugh
Vereker in "The Figure in the Carpet." developed a secret
technique of control and animation which was not readily
perceived by the critics.

Yet. despite James's emphasis in the ”Preface" to "The
Figure in the Carpet" on his frustration at the “odd numb-
ness of the general sensibility" which confined his reading
public to the "scantest measure” of scarcely ”half the

14 the tone of the

intentions embodied" in a work of art.
story itself is triumphant rather than embittered. Hugh
Vereker. the author who has incorporated an ”exquisite
little scheme" into the essence of his work. calls it the
”joy“ of his soul. His face ”lighted" when he spoke of it;
he is a ”man with some safe secret for enjoyment.” When
George Corvick discovers the "scheme." his reaction is a
delighted "Eureka.” After his death. his wife leads a life
of "dignity and beauty" in possession of the secret;

her second novel. which is better than her first. dis-

plays a ”figure of its own.” The secret of the scheme

is never revealed. but the joy of possessing it seems to

11
mitigate frustration at the critical denseness which cannot
detect it.

Critics have defined the "exquisite little scheme” in
various ways. Seymour Lainoff proposes the secret to be
”life.” which. as the story hints. is "unformulatable."15
Leo Levy believes that Vereker. alias James. is calling for
an ”act of love” on the part of the reader: ”the under-
standing of form and total intention must be a human and

.16

humane action. Similarly. Lyall Powers comments that the

point is ”not what the figure is but rather how to look at

.17

the carpet. Other critics who maintain that the secret

is "converting the sexual passion . . . into the civi-

.18

lized status of moral passion. or that it is the pleasure

”of the phantasies which [the author] enjoys during his

creative work."19

have overstated their analyses.

There are several textual parallels between the
description of the secret in the story and James's Neteboeke
entry for February 14. 1895. in which he discusses his stage
failure. Vereker's ”exquisite little scheme" is like the
”exquisite truth” of dramatization which lies behind the
"divine principle of the Scenario.” The metaphors used to
illustrate Vereker's scheme. which is like ”a bird in a cage.
a bait on a hook. a piece of cheese in a mouse--trap."20 are
similar in kind to James's figure. used in the Nerebggks.
of a “key“ which ”fits the complicated chambers of both the

21

dramatic and the narrative lock.“ James's discovered

“truth” becomes ”the thing to live by.” just as Vereker's

12

"little point" is what he has "written his books most Ter.”

When the evidence in the notebook entries is considered
as a clue to Vereker's secret. his ”exquisite little scheme”
can be defined as that of dramatic technique. In addition.
when the story is understood as a fable of James's own
career. it seems to describe the existence of a pattern so
basic and so vital to the construction of his novels that
to ask like the narrator in "The Figure in the Carpet."
"Is it something in the style or . . . in the thought?
An element of form or . . . feeling?” is to make "pitiful”

distinctions.22

The form which expresses feeling. the

style which is. at the same time. thought. describes a care-
fully constructed novel possessing a true coherency of form
and content. In an article about "The Figure in the Carpet."
Joseph Warren Beach points out that James's own "little
trick” is ”simply not to tell the 'story' at all . . . but
to give us instead the subjective accompaniment of the

story."23

James does achieve a true coherency of form and
content in ID§.E128§ e; rhe hege_and The Golden heel where
the subjective processes of the characters provide both the
structure of the novel and its content.

To show that James first formulated his dramatic method
in 1895 and produced his finest works thereafter. however.
is not to demonstrate that novels written before that date
lack the patterned approach which makes his later works such
fine complexities of feeling and thought. As Weglin points

out. James did not begin to develop a distinctive viewpoint

13
toward universal moral concerns until the late 1880's.24
The Euroeeans (1878) is the first novel which deals with an
analysis of American behavior from a European viewpoint. It
contains several characters whose actions bear a resemblance
to the circular and spiral patterns more fully developed in
the later novels. Baroness Eugenia possesses the worldli-
ness and accomplishments eventually attributed to Madame
Merle in The Perrrait gr_e Leer; both women return to their
native lands after making advantageous marriages for their
protégés. and both fail to develop out of a narrowly limited
set of personal attitudes. In contrast. Gertrude Wentworth
is a ”frail vessel” whose personal intensity and desire to
see life impels her to escape from a rigidly puritanical
existence. Verena Tarrant in The Boeteniane (1886). whose
red hair and susceptibilities resemble Milly Theale's. is
another example of an early spiral character. Both Milly
and Verena are used as means rather than as ends in themselves
until they reject the companions whose ethics they had ini-
tially admired and espoused. Verena. who relinquishes the
women's liberation movement for the sake of a personal rela-
tionship. is contrasted with Olive. who uses Verena's rhe-
torical power and personal magnetism to gain success for the
cause. and who eventually retreats from personal relationships
into futile defensiveness.

By the time James wrote The Amba ado 3. he had almost
perfected the craft of patterned characterization. Lambert
Strether's developing perceptions are delicately counter-

poised to Wollett's preconceived notions about immorality.

14
Where Strether expects vulgarity in Paris. he finds refine-
ment; Mrs. Newsome's preconceptions about Madame de
Vionnet do not pass the test of experience. Strether's
lesson is that the value of a human relationship far sur-
passes an abstract moral dictum. He is thus shocked at Chad
Newsome's desertion of Madame de Vionnet. The experience
which Europe offers has changed Chad only to the extent of
superficial mannerisms and outward sophistication. whereas

Strether's deepest ideals have been altered and widened.

 

llllllllllll
ll“

The Porrrait e£,e Lady

Suffer us not to mock ourselves with falsehood
Teach us to care and not to care
Teach us to sit still
Even among these rocks . . .
"Ash Wednesday” -- T. S. Eliot

If The Portrair 9T,e heel is considered in detail as
a prototype of the patterned subjective evaluation James
used extensively in The Wings 2£.£E§.22!2 and The Golden
hegT. one finds that the form of the novel is determined by
the development of Isabel's maturing psyche. and that the
content of the novel is her changing reaction to the world.
James at first feared that the story had been weakened by
being ”too . . . psychological" but later in the "Preface”
triumphed over the "interesting" and "beautiful . . .
difficulty” he had conquered by placing ”the centre of the
subject in the young woman's own consciousness” (Inxv).
The EerrreTr efije LQQX cannot be read. like an adventure or
mystery story. for its plot: the main interest lies in the
movement of Isabel's consciousness. which gives continuity
and validity to the action. At this point in James's
writing career. the heroine's goodness is no longer the
e prTerL condition it was for Christopher Newman. although
the definition of evil as narrowness and restricted devel-
opment remains fixed. without a hint of the sympathy later

15

l6
accorded to Kate Grey and Charlotte Stant. Isabel's mis-
takes are well-motivated and forgivable. whereas Osmond's
are not: James has acquired understanding for the sins of
his leading character but not yet for those of the antagonist.
Once he allows his heroine to be greatly. morally wrong.
the impact of her realization is preportionally strengthened.
For example. Roderick Hudson. the nominal hero of an
earlier book. is rushed into a suicide with little expla-
nation of his precipitous behavior. Again. in IEQ.AE2£L£§E¢
Christopher Newman is victimized rather than erring: thus
his loss of Claire and renunciation of revenge on the Belle-
gardes lack the drama and tragedy of Isabel's final rejec-
tion of Goodwood.

Isabel's errors of judgment are numerous. Her notion
of experience. for instance. is to sample without the risk
of involvement; early in her career she tells Ralph. ”I
don't wish to touch the cup of experience. It's a poisoned
drink! I only want to see for myself" (1:213). After her
disastrous marriage to Osmond. she discovers that ”seeing”
has not provided sufficient evidence on which to judge accu-
rately. Before her marriage. however. all of her actions
reaffirm her philosophy of uninvolvement. In Albany. she is
admired as ”superior.” and therefore left to herself; be-
cause no one seems to ”speak with authority.” she can in-
dulge her ”sin of self-esteem." By attempting to place her
life ”in harmony with the most pleasing impression she should

produce” (1:69). she removes herself from a direct reaction

.|.| lllllll.lllttlllllllllullftllllllrilllllll ..
I‘ll

17

to people around her and creates a gap between her apparent
personality and the reality of her being. It is to Isabel's
credit. nonetheless. that she disagree with Madame Merle's
philosophy. which is really a corollary to her own theory:

. . . every human being has his shell and

. . you must take the shell into account.

By the shell I mean the whole envelope of cir-

cumstances . . . we are each of us made up

of some cluster of appurtenances. (I:287)
Isabel labels Madame Merle's "appurtenances" as "perfectly
arbitrary” barriers to personality: nevertheless. she fails
to see that the ”pleasing impression" she wishes to create
is not only ”perfectly arbitrary.” but is an effective
deterrent to real experience. Her distaste for involvement
is also illustrated by her early companions. who function
as vices in a morality play. She accepts the protection of
her aunt. Mrs. Touchett. who is wife and mother in name only:
she marries a man who cares more for his precious bibelots
than for humanity: and she befriends Madame Merle. ”too
perfectly the social animal.” who has successfully effaced
all traces of any intimate relationships. The actions which
are dictated by Isabel's belief in uninvolvement are static
because they do not lead to deeper perceptions. and circular
because one action tends to reinforce another of the same
type. For example. her prodigious self-esteem allows her to
assume a superior attitude to her Albany acquaintances: the
same self-esteem dictates that she ignore the Touchetts'
warnings about Osmond in order to rely on her own estimate

which has been produced by judging without experience.
Osmond's policy of "impress[}ng] himself not largely but

—_

 

‘I' I .l Ill l illl l l I .l .‘ I. llll’ Ill l l K‘ II '- | I III I. l l l l l I
II .I I\ ll I

18

deeply” seems to Isabel to indicate a commitment to involve-
ment. but is actually a withdrawal from the vulgarity of
humanity. In her inexperience. Isabel agrees that ”one must
choose a corner and cultivate that.” but the unexpected
sterility of her life with Osmond awakens her to a true under-
standing of her naivetéz There is a parallel between the
corner Isabel does choose. which is "the house of dumbness.
the house of darkness. the house of suffocation” belonging
to Osmond (11:196) and her favorite corner in Albany where

she might have had the whole house to choose

from. and the room she had selected was the

most depressed of its scenes. (1:31)
Ralph. whose illness denies him active participation in life.
has an adequate excuse for transferring his legacy to Isa-
bel as a substitute for a more personal expression of love.
She. however. who has no such excuse. enters marriage pri-
marily to invest her money by giving it to "the man with the
best taste in the world” (11:193). She thus carries the
indelicate burden of a seventy-thousand pound inheritance
directly into Osmond's ”dark. narrow alley with a dead wall
at the end" (11:189). Unlike Milly Theale. who renounces
the kingdoms of the earth from her high place in the Alps.
Isabel never even glimpses the view: her life with Osmond
leads to the imprisonment of despair rather than

. . to the high places of happiness. from

which the world would seem to lie below one. so

that one could look down with a sense of exal-

tation and advantage. and judge and choose and

pity. (11:189)

Once Isabel recognizes that the "lengthening vistas" of

her personality have been collapsed into a “small garden-plot”

19

attached to Osmond's "deer-park." she attempts to examine
her lost illusions. She feels responsible for Osmond's
incorrect analysis of her own disposition: under his singu-
lar charm. she had effaced herself. pretended ”there was
less of her than there really was." Thus "she almost pitied
him: for if she had not deceived him in intention she
understood how completely she must have done so in fact"
(11:191). In terms of her earlier. mistaken attempt to
live up to the impression she creates. she now discovers
that she must live gegh to the impression Osmond is condi-
tioned to expect. She admits that "she had loved him . . .
-- a good deal for what she found in him. but a good deal
also for what she brought him" (11:192). She loved him for
the use to which he could put her wealth: however. instead
of enhancing her fortune. he corrupted it by his meanness
of attitude. She failed to present him with an honest
sample of her largeness of thought except by endowing him
with all the virtues her imagination could muster. and
thus finding in him much that was not there.

The end of The Portrart 2£.§ Leer has been subjected to
extensive analysis. James anticipated the furor when he said:

The obvious criticism of course will be . . .

that I have not seen the heroine to the end of

her situation . . . this is both true and

false. What I have done has . . . unity -- it

groups together. It is complete in itself -- and

the rest may be taken up or not. later.
Certain critics see only the negative aspects of Isabel's

return to Osmond. William Bysshe Stein finds a case of

”sterile femininity” in which "conventional moralism”

20

26 Arnold Kettle's

triumphs over ”instinctive integrity."
criticism is somewhat sharper: he feels that James's art
is self-betraying because the inevitability of suffering in
Isabel's "sacrificial tribute" to her marriage becomes a

27

form of inescapable external destiny. Quentin Anderson

calls the ending a failure. because there is no creative
way for Isabel to tread her ”straight path” to Osmond.28
Three critics. however. agree that Isabel's return to Osmond
indicates an acceptance of moral responsibility rather than

a lapse into pretentious melodrama on James's part. J. A.

Ward feels that Isabel's rejection of Goodwood represents

the ”fulfillment of her idealism and early search"29 :

Dorothea Krook claims that Isabel rejects Osmond's 'sophistries"

30 : and Dorothy Van

while respecting ”the honor of a thing”
Ghent finds that at the end Isabel's world acquires ”an
invisible extension in depth . . . an extension into the
freedom of personal renunciation and inexhaustible respon-
sribility.”31 Only after Isabel understands her errors with
regard to Osmond and herself is she able to accept and live
with the truth about Pansy's parentage and about the source
of her own wealth. Only after she has suffered and despaired
pancshe understand Ralph's all-encompassing love and Good-
wood's strength. Her stance at the end is. then. anything

but the "Phyrric victory” MacKenzie finds it to be.32

By
understanding her past blindness and Osmond's hypocrisies.
she can face her life humbled. yet triumphant.

Isabel's acceptance of responsibility for her part in

the failure of her marriage and her final choice of

Till [l-ll([ll[([[[({f

21

involvement with Osmond. rather than escape. places her in
the class of characters whose development has been described
as spiral. She makes classic Jamesian mistakes by using
Osmond as the vehicle for the employment of her wealth and
by attempting to preserve her innocence while gaining
experience. Marriage to Osmond teaches her the limitations
of seeing without feeling. and shows her the sterility of
a rigid indifference which denies humanity. In revulsion
against her husband's way of life. which is the logical out-
growth of her own philosophy of uninvolvement. Isabel is
able to break out of a pattern which threatens to become
circular. Her decision to go to the dying Ralph is a choice
of love made in defiance of Osmond's ”traditions.“ Her
decision to return to Osmond is not a resumption of her old
attitudes. but a choice of responsibility to Pansy and to
her marriage: it demonstrates that she has chosen involve-
ment in a situation for which she is to blame rather than a
false escape from responsibility with Goodwood. Her
reaction to his final proposal is of paramount importance.
because he represents the 'good wood' of America which. for
Isabel. is now out of reach. He also stands for all of her
lost illusions: in his last speech. he says

We can do absolutely as we please . . . were

we born to rot in our misery -- were we born

to be afraid? . . . The world is all before

us and the world is very big. (11:435)
Isabel has learned that doing absolutely as she pleases is
the prime tenet of uninvolvement. True freedom requires

the responsible recognition that other consciousnesses

22

besides one's own must be taken into account and that
suffering is a necessary analogue to eXperience. In reality.
the world is quite small. but its depth is immeasurable: the
world is an essential part of the human being himself. Isa-
bel's final decision is an act of mature judgment. She is
no longer a spectator who judges the quality of experience
by its extensiveness alone. With her decision to return.
she is finally able to say that her action is genuine. the
result of some direct impression or perception of life.
Ultimately. she has chosen to know herself. At the end.
even Osmond's hypocrisy cannot hide the truth inherent in
his last words to her: ”I think we should accept the con-
sequences of our actions. and what I value most in life is
the honor of a thing!" (11:356).

None of the characters in The Portrarr 2£.§.Lé92.1n-
crease their levels of awareness or change as drastically
as Isabel. Ralph falls in love with her despite his predi-
lection for observing rather than experiencing. but like
Mildred Theory in "Georgina's Reasons.” he is one of James's
exquisitely perceptive characters for whom an active change
of outlook is irrelevant in the light of their invalidism.
Osmond. whose single goal is to maintain his adopted con-
ventions and avoid the general vulgarity of humanity.
remains appalled at Isabel's ”ideas" to the end. He has
become fossilized within a set of rules governing a ”delib-
erately indifferent” posture and as such will not change.

Madame Merle. who accuses him of having "dried up” her soul.

23
comes to recognize that he is ”gery bad” and that she has
been “so vile all for nothing.” but her only expiation is
to return to America. Osmond's moral stagnancy and Madame
Merle's complicity place both in the class of characters
whose early preconceptions have jelled in an unbreakable
mold. Every action serves to reinforce a previously taken
decision. so that if the moral evolution of these characters
were plotted on a graph. the figure obtained would be a
circle. In the early novels. which rely on more complicated
stories to support the plot. the circular progress of the
morally stultified characters is less obvious because they
are relatively undeveloped. When we examine IEQ.EL§B£.9£
rhe_2ege_and The Geldeh hggT. however. we find that the
closer treatment accorded the unredeemed characters makes
their entrapment in a circular pattern of action quite ob-

V1098.

CHAPTER II. THE flThQ§,QE_Th§ QQEE

A close textual analysis of IDQ.HLB£§.2£.£EQ.QQ!§
reveals the spiral and circular character patterns which
appeared in an embryonic form in the earlier novels. In
this work. the moral integrity of a character is demonstrated
by how effectively he restructures a cycle of recurring
events. No major character displays the stereotyped evil-
ness of Urbain de Bellegarde or the unconscious goodness of
Christopher Newman: even Kate's narrowness seems mitigated.
as Osmond's is not. by the anguish of the conflict between
her emotional and financial needs. The complex moral rela-
tivities presented in IEQ.!128§.2£.£D§.22!§ are clearly a
reflection of Minny Temple's own bewilderment at "the
indissoluable mixture of good and evil in us all."33

Kate Croy's choice of wealth over love sets up a
restrictive. circular pattern in which her actions must
reaffirm her initial choice if she is to gain her desired
financial position. The flawed society of which she is a
part subordinates human beings to wealth34 and encourages
her to adopt a role which conceals her feeling for Densher
in order to gain a fortune. In her carefully structured
universe. she distributes the roles which others play. and.
like Alice and the Red Queen in Wonderland. runs as fast
as possible to stay in the same place. On the other hand.

24

25
Milly Theale and Merton Densher free themselves from ini-
tially stultifying patterns of imperception: they are
choice-givers rather than role-givers. and owe their
allegiance to humanity rather than to wealth. Milly. who
wishes simply to 'live.' finds her ultimate joy and ulti-
mate knowledge in human relationships. Densher. who at
first has great admiration for Kate's life style. learns.
in the end. that he has sacrificed Milly to Kate's desire
for wealth. As his expiation. he adopts Milly's values.
but the knowledge which his moral growth places between

him and Kate destroys their relationship forever.

Kate Croy

What we call the beginning is often the end
And to make an end is to make a beginning.
The end is where we start from.

“Little Gidding" -- T. S. Eliot

Kate Croy's analysis of English society as a "monster"
which keeps its victims ”hideously relative to tiers and

35 reveals the reason for her choice of

tiers of others”
wealth over love. She herself is "hideously relative” to
other things. Lionel Croy insists that she sacrifice family
feeling in order to accept Maud Lowder's financial and
social patronage: Maud banks on Kate's exquisite beauty to
attract wealth and prestige to her coterie. Because Kate

is manipulated by father. sister. and aunt for the sake of
social status. she learns to compromise familial feelings
for financial stability. James has thus given Kate impec-
cable motivations for her decision to adopt the set of
values sanctioned by Lancaster Gate. Nevertheless. her

need for opulence. her responsibilities. and. finally. her
attempt to serve Milly while serving herself36 cannot com-
pletely excuse her actions. Lancaster Gate is a business
complex where fortunes are made by valuing people for the

use to which they can be put. The circularity involved in

such a social system is evident: a gain for one person is

26

27
a loss for another. who attempts to recoup at someone else's
expense. This type of compensation follows from disregarding
a person's intrinsic value and leads to the desecration of
human relationships. As Hawthorne points out. to use some-
one as a means rather than as an end is to violate the mag-
netic chain of humanity.

Lionel Croy is at the vortex of the debilitating
pattern which traps Kate in a cycle of imperceptiveness.
James. in fact. intended that ”the image of her so com-
promised and compromising father was all effectively to
have pervaded her life . . . to have tampered with her
spring” (I:xiv): Kate is attached to her father by the same
invisible leash which binds Charlotte Stant to Adam Verver
at the end of The_Golgen heel. The half-enunciated plan
which the elder Croy presents to Kate at the beginning of
the novel structures her entire course of action. Maud
Lowder promises to sponsor her in society on the condition
that she disown her father: Kate is initially prepared to
reject the offer out of family loyalty and love for Densher.
For her father. however. Kate's acceptance of Lancaster
Gate is the ”basket” with all of his ”eggs”: it is his con.
ception of her duty. After she has derived the last possible
advantage from Maud's society and has married "properly.”
Lionel Croy will resume relations with his daughter. Kate's
duty is to sacrifice family feeling for financial and social
prestige. She accordingly goes to Lancaster Gate. but the

true nature of the advantages the glittering ”castle” seems

28

to offer is revealed in her bitter castigation of English
society to Milly: the function of Lancaster Gate is "to
devour the unwary. to abase the proud. to scandalise the
good” (1:277).

In many ways. Kate's actions mirror her father's.
First of all. the relationship between Lionel Croy and his
wife was highly ambiguous: all that is certain is the bare
fact of his desertion. which for Kate reinforces the lesson
that wealth is greater security than affection. He has.
moreover. the sinister power of appearing blameless. arising
from a “perfect look” which makes him a ”terrible husband
not to live with." Kate's own ”perfect look" is similarly
insinuating. In her company. both Lord Mark and Densher
seem vaguely at fault. the one for hesitating to form an
alliance with her. the other for cavilling at her demands
about Milly. Finally. Lionel Croy has committed a ”horrid"
deed whose ominous shadow hangs over Kate like a Yeatsian
monster of the second coming. The act is never identified.
yet remains a latent force throughout the novel. Kate's sin
against Milly and Densher is likewise unnamable: she herself
hesitates to eXplain the scheme fully until she has gone too
far to retreat. In the end. father and daughter successfully
alienate wife and fiance: One is convinced that Lionel
Croy's final dissolution into Speechless terror will some-
day be shared by his daughter.

The close relationship between Kate's and Lionel Croy's
actions can be demonstrated by examining parallel textual

references. When. at the end. Densher admits that his

WE

GU

 

 

29

fiancee would not have been ”in the least the creature she
was” if the sordid surroundings of Marian's lodgings ”hadn't
mismatched her" (II:365). he echoes Kate's own feeling about
her father who. in the beginning. seems so extraordinarily
mismatched with his Vulgar little room. An eXplicit parallel
is evident between the following two quotations: the first
describes the meeting between Kate and her father. the
second. Densher's later confrontation with her in Marian's
1'00is

. . . the absurd feeling her father momen-

tarily made her have of being herself “looked

up” by him in sordid lodgings . . . after he

came in it was as if the place were her own and

he the visitor with susceptibilities. (1:8)

. . she affected Densher at once as a dis-

tinguished stranger -- a stranger to the little

Chelsea street -- who was making the best of a

queer episode . . . the extraordinary thing

was that at the end of three minutes he felt

himself less appointedly a stranger in it than

she. (11:364)
History repeats itself for the exquisite girl who has a
father with a ”perfect look.” Further parallels become
evident with each key scene in the novel. When Kate begins
to reveal her plans about Milly. Densher feels instinctively
that his fiancee is being "evasive”: 'He couldn't and he
wouldn't -- wouldn't have her inconvenient and elusive”
(11:19 ). Lionel Croy's elusiveness has been passed on to
his daughter: Kate inspires the same type of mistrust
that her father does. At their first meeting. she is pain-
fully aware "of the futility of any effort to hold [Lionel

Cray] to anything”: and the inconvenience ”was not that

30
you minded what was false. but that you missed what was
true" (1:7). In addition. when Croy demands that she go
to Lancaster Gate. her answer -- ”you demand a great deal
of satisfaction . . . for the little you give” (1:23) --
is in the profit-loss vocabulary which he has ably demon-
strated as the only way to deal with personal demands. She
repeats the same answer to Milly when asked to be discreet
about the girl's visit to Sir Luke Strett. So characteristic
has this response become to Kate. that it is indicative of
the influence she has over Densher to find him parroting a
variation to Kate herself:

. . . you know. what you give me seems to me.

more than anything else. the larger and larger

size of my job. It seems to me more than any-

thing else what you expect of me. It never seems

to me somehow what I may expect of ou. There's

so much you geh'r give me. (II:197
Kate indeed gives nothing: she only bargains. Her personal
relationship with Densher is finally conducted on the same
business terms as her relationship with her father.

Of secondary importance. but just as obvious. is Lionel
Croy's effect on his other daughter. Marian marries the
“incredibly fatuous” parson for a "dull suburban parish” who
resembles her father in certain respects. Like Croy. Con-
drip possesses a blameless ”saintly profile” which he pre-
sents ”on system. having. goodness knew. nothing else to
present . . . no imagination of the propriety of living”
(1:35). He eventually dies. and Marian. like her mother

before her. is left with a brood of ”clamorous children"

and no means of support.

31
Devouring the Unwary
J. A. Ward's analysis that "Kate's initial conflict is
between acceptance of family poverty for the sake of loyalty
and acceptance of Aunt Maud's wealth for the sake of magni-

"37 is inaccurate: her initial conflict is between

ficence
the acceptance of her father's will as her own and the pur-
suit of her own wishes. Not until she agrees to go to Lan-
caster Gate does the conflict between loyalty and magni-
ficence become important. Her resolution of the conflict
which Ward notes is a paradoxical attempt to maintain per-
sonal integrity while gaining wealth on Maud Lowder's terms.
Kate wishes to pay nothing for her new-found prestige. but
in reality sacrifices the one prize -- her personal integrity
-- which is worth retaining. Nevertheless. her efforts to
”square" Aunt Maud are conscientious. They do. however.
demand two actions which are in direct oppOsition to her
own desires. In order to guarantee Lionel Croy's hopes of
remuneration and to conform to the explicit promise which
Maud Lowder has extracted from her. she must disown her
father: in addition. she must satisfactorily deal with her
aunt's unspoken expectation that she give up Densher. a man
who has ”a private inability to believe he should ever be
rich" (1:62). to contract a more socially and financially
brilliant marriage. Thus Kate attempts to ”square” everyone
by agreeing to marry splendidly while "squaring” herself

by secretly maintaining her loyalty to her father and to

Densher.38 To achieve her own ends. she presents an

32

exceptionally plastic surface to Maud Lowder: under her
aunt's roof. she had ”to dress the part. to walk. to look. to
speak. in every way to express. the part . . . for the
character she had undertaken” (1:34). Her long-range plan
is to arrange for Densher to inherit a sufficient amount of
wealth so that their marriage would be financially amenable
to her aunt. The strength of Kate's will. however. is per-
verted into an unnatural channel even before she is intro-
duced into society. It is too easy to allow sympathy for
her predicament to obscure the fact that her proverbial
strength of mind is her exercised by maintaining her in-
tegrity. but by accepting her father's decision that she go
to Lancaster Gate. and by acceding to Maud Lowder's plans
for a socially acceptable marriage. Her ”strength" is
exhibited only by the great extent to which she will allow
her love for Densher and loyalty to her father to be vio-
lated in order to satisfy the dictates of a society founded
upon inhumanity and materialism. Kate can "bear too much”:
her corruption ”lies in the hee she makes of her own love
and of her own great endowments. in her abuse of one sort
of value for ends of quite another sort."39

The part which Kate has to play to maintain Maud
Lowder's good will necessitates good acting ability and per-
fect self-control. since she must impose a pattern of behavior
on herself and on others which will not jeopardize her
father's plan. nor. when Milly arrives. her own scheme.
Kate. as playwrite. manager. and actress. doles out the roles.

Her task is to create an appearance which will satisfy

33
Maud and a reality which will satisfy herself. To achieve
her goal. Densher must appear to give her up while she
endeavours to make him wealthy. By Book 6. she has settled
upon a course of action: if Densher feigns interest in
Milly. Maud Lowder will believe that Kate's undesirable
attachment is over: if Milly can be made to love Densher
well enough to be generous to him. then Densher and Kate
can make a financially secure marriage. The scene in which
Kate presents her plan is a marvel of tension. She gives
Densher only those cues which are enough for him to act on.
and no more: she accurately guages exactly how much ex-
planation he will accept and believe. and exactly how much
she herself must 'pay' to keep him as an actor. Because she
must constantly be a "creature of precautions" and seemingly
acquiesce to all of her aunt's wishes without a moment's
lapse into her real character. Kate cannot change. When
she allows herself to be used by her aunt and her father.
she enters the pernicious cycle of profit-loss which so de-
humanizes the members of Lancaster Gate. She attempts to
recoup the loss of her own freedom by profiting from Milly's
imminent death and love for Densher. and thus uses Milly's
humanity for her own gain.

The plan to use Milly is never stated in full: it is
revealed. bit by bit. as Densher and Kate play out their
roles. A reasonably clear statement does not occur until
Milly's last party. Kate refuses. even then. to be the first

to objectify the distasteful scheme. for that would be to

34
make vivid the horror of it all. just as to name her father's
terrible crime would be to evoke the ”old evil." "If you
want things named. you must name them.” she tells Densher:
but once ”he was in possession . . . she couldn't for-
bear. strangely enough. to pronounce the words . . . as
if she should be ashamed. to the very end. to have flinched”
(11:225). Kate seems to fear that. like Faustus. she might
evoke uncontrollable forces by giving them their correct
names. Her attitude towards her father's evil is similar
to her attitude towards truth: just as she hopes to main-
tain mastery over the evil by not naming it. she hopes to
retain her love for Densher by concealing it. In both cases.
the result is a deceptively serene surface. Despite her
silence. the influence of the ”old evil” does not abate:
Kate is very much enthralled by her father. as her grand
scheme against Milly illustrates. Densher contributes to
the silence by agreeing not to ask for a full explanation
of Kate's demand that he befriend Milly: their relationship
depends on Kate's "freedom of action" and his ”beauty of
trust.” Unfortunately. her ”freedom of action” necessarily
curtails Densher's. but his ”beauty of trust” in no way re-
stricts her freedom. When Densher stops trusting and be-
gins questioning. it is too late to withdraw from the scheme.
For one thing. they have ”gone too far” and "told too many
lies" to act straightforwardly: Milly might die were Den-
sher to withdraw his attentions. even in the interest of the

tmth e

35

The evil that Kate does becomes increasingly evident
as Densher grows more and more committed to her management.
She is not to blame alone: Densher's vacillating moral state
and overweening desire for 'life' shackle him to her author-
itarianism. He believes that Kate possesses a talent for
living which he. with his intellectual flair. does not
have: yet her talent for living is really a talent for
acting. and what he admires in her is not 'life' but a
simulation of it. Kate must pretend to be without family
feeling to gain acceptance at Lancaster Gate. and without
love for Densher to gain money for him from Milly: he.
likewise. learns to simulate affection for Milly and to
pretend that Kate's passion for him is non-existent. The
play-acting which Kate demands of him requires as plastic a
surface as she is forced to show to Maud. Obviously. no
absolute judgment can be made which exonerates Densher and
blames only Kate for Milly's deception and death: Densher.
in his weakness and indecision. allows himself to be used

as the bait to trap the poor little rich girl from New York.

Milly Theale

The dove descending breaks the air
With flame of incandescent terror . . .
"Little Gidding" -- T. S. Eliot

The idea of Milly Theale as an absolutely blameless
force palls considerably after reading James's ”Preface.”
This "vessel of sensibility" is a Lorelei. and the compli-
cations caused by her ‘for the most part sinister lia-
bilities” figure prominently in the ”general engulfment.”
Milly. despite her princess-like stance. is given a techni-
cally realistic treatment: ”her stricken state was but half
her case. the correlative half being the state of others as
affected by her” (I:xi). As Matthiessen points out. Milly.
the dove. carries both regenerative and destructive over-
tones.40 One can take James's remarks into account without
condemning Milly. however: Blackmur. for example. is
overly concerned about Milly's adverse influence when he
maintains that Kate's predicament shows Milly to be the
impossible aspiration. the "worst temptation.” because she

appeals to the worst in human nature.41

Obviously. she also
appeals to the best. and therein lies the choice.

The regenerative aspect of the dove image is demon-
strated when it is used as a descriptive metaphor for

idealistic or imaginative ideas. Lionel Croy accuses Kate
36

37
of a ”fine flight” in thinking of refusing the well-cushioned
"perch” which Maud Lowder offers. Susan Stringham has a
series of "secret dreams” which "fluttered their hour" and
finally ”perched. on the instant. at the clearest lookout”
possible to await a signal from Milly (1:105). Merton Den-
sher. before his ”descent to English earth.” had spent his
childhood on the continent. and ”had passed. by the way.
through zones of air that had left their ruffle on his
wings -- he had been exposed to initiations indelible”
(1:93). His projected trip to New York is expressed by
means of the same motif: ”The imprisoned thought had . . .
flown straight out into Densher's face. or perched at least
on his shoulder” (1:85). Later. he finds that Milly's
generous spirit offers him a ”perch” where he can rest from
Kate's demands and eXpectations. In a related bird image.
Maud Lowder appears as an eagle whose "gilded beak" and
"wonderful gilded claws“ fasten tenaciously on Kate. The
description of Susan Stringham's felt hat. "feathered from
the eagle's wing.” precisely indicates the relative positions
of the two women: Maud is clearly the more rapacious of
the two. yet Mrs. Stringham. the more imaginative and
humanitarian. has triumphed to the extent of wearing the
totem bird in her headdress.

The dove image achieves its definitive regenerative/
destructive nature when it is applied to its proper mis-
tress. Upon Milly's arrival at Lancaster Gate. she is
immediately plunged into the insistent appearances and mul-

tiple phenomena which wash over her ”like plashes of a slow.

38

thick tide." She ”alighted."

taking up her destiny again as if she had been

able by a wave or two of her wings to place her-

self briefly in sight of an alternative to it.

Whatever it was had showed . . . as better

than the alternative . . . (1:160)
"Whatever it was” is the possibility of her ”being . . .
a success" in Lancaster Gate society. an entity which passes
for the moment as 'life.' The "alternative” is the non-
involvement she has already experienced during her lonely
travels through Europe. At Lancaster Gate. Kate gives her
the ambiguous role which she plays at first unconsciously
and then later by effort: Milly "found herself accepting as
the right one . . . the name so given to her . . . The;
was what was the matter with her. She was a dove. Oh
wasn't she?” (1:283). Unlike Densher. Milly requires little
persuasion to undertake her role as dove. because it is part
of her nature to be peacemaker and protector. Even Kate.
who hesitates to name the roles she and Densher play. is not
afraid to enunciate Milly's part. Milly protects Kate. pro-
tects them all -- at first actively. then later by her silent
forgiveness. Nevertheless. as Kate discovers. Milly the
protector is also a temptation: and as Densher discovers.
Milly the regenerative force demands the ”unbearable pain”
of purification.

With Milly's growing recognition that the rapacious
attitudes of Lancaster Gate cannot satisfy her unfulfilled

humanity. she withdraws to Venice. In her palatial tower.

the ”impossible romance“ becomes for her ”an image of never

39
going down. of remaining aloft in the divine dustless air.
where she would hear but the plash of water against stone"
(11:147). The silence of the tower and its seclusion from
the general engulfment of Lancaster Gate demonstrate that
Milly has chosen an alternative to society: her increased
perceptiveness shows that the alternative is not simply the
isolation which she had on the Swiss mountains. In the un-
hypocritical sense of Gilbert Osmond's words. she wishes to
”impress” herself "not largely but deeply.” Both she and
Kate sample society. yet only Milly withdraws from its
futility. Kate. who can vocalize the vicious use which the
members of Lancaster Gate make of each other. nevertheless
remains within the system and hopes to profit materially
from it at the expense of her own spirit.

The destructive aspect of the dove image becomes most
evident in the last chapters. where it becomes intensified
to an ominous degree. Yet Milly is not merely a Lorelei.
but a dove-like innocent who has the power to purify those
around her. Densher and Kate begin to sense her two-fold
nature during one of their "extraordinary conversations"
about Milly when their solitude. in which ”the only sign for
their ears was the flutter of the doves. begot in the heart
of each a fear" (11:193). Even at Milly's last party. Den-
sher realizes that she “was indeed a dove . . . though it
most applied to her spirit.” Her wealth was dove-like ”only
as far as one remembered that doves have wings and wondrous

flights. have them as well as tender tints and soft sounds?

40
Because of her change in outlook about Lancaster Gate.
Milly's wings grow prodigiously while she is alive: in fact.
their inordinate protective length covers everyone within
reach. until they all are ”nestling under them to a great
increase of immediate ease" (11:218). Densher and Kate are
also inevitably covered to a great increase of immediate and

future discomfort.

§Th and Error
The kind of success Milly achieves as a dove and the

efficacy of the role she adopts to increase perception and

to enable her to live is defined by her attitudes toward

other human beings. Like most of James's pilgrims. she

comes to Europe from the New World. suffering the same rest-

less energy which afflicts Roderick Hudson. Her early move-

ments are notable primarily for a lack of purpose: "im-

patiences” and ”bolder dreams" motivate her constant flitting

for ”endless variety.” Mrs. Stringham decides that her

charge. who diaplays a quantity of ”eagerness without

point.” has in effect been ”starved for culture." If 'ex-

perience' is substituted for ”culture.” one is faced with

the implication that Milly. in her search for 'life.' may

sin as deeply as Kate. who helps "lay the trap for the great

innocence to come.” James himself implies that Milly's

major fault is extravagance: she is always. ”in some direc-

tion. generous and extravagant. and thereby provoking“

(I:x). J. A. Ward lists pride. reliance on money and resis-

42

tance to facing life as Milly's greatest flaws. Dorothea

41
Krook. who feels that Milly sins by hiding her illness and
thereby preventing "some remnant of loving kindness out of
the cold heart of the world” from saving her. does point out.
however. that the world manifests very little sincere

loving kindness.43

What Milly sees in the hosts of “kind
eyes” surrounding her is a reflection of her own generosity.
Her ”expensive silence" not only prevents false pity from
reaching her. but has several more important effects.

First of all. it quickly repells interest based on her
approaching death rather than on her humanity. Secondly.

it is a test of the spirit for all those who come in con-
tact with her illness: everyone around her is ”confronted
with rare questions and called upon for new discriminations'
(I:viii). Finally. Milly's silence about her mortality

44 Whereas Lancaster Gate denies both

effectively denies it.
the mortality and the life which characterize humanity by
treating human beings as objects. Milly denies her mortality
in order to emphasize the importance of life. Maud. Susan.
and Kate and Densher are forced to examine their attitudes
to determine whether. once her mortality is denied. Milly is
to be valued as an object or a human being. Mrs. Lowder
maintains her interest in establishing a liason between
Densher and Milly. not so much for Milly's sake. but to
settle her suspicions about Kate's unprofitable attachment.
To Susan Stringham she seems to be saying. ”I'll help you
for Milly. because if that comes off I shall be helped. by

its doing so. for Kate” (11:117). Susan. who has a sincere

42

interest in Milly's welfare. characteristically does what
she can to save her by a final appeal to Densher. She trans-
lates Milly's plight into the romantic explanation that she
is dying for love. which is not too far from the truth:
Milly is actually dying for life. and the immediate cause of
her death is the discovery that the only possible relation-
ship with those she had trusted is one based on use.45
Kate continues to maintain her interest in Milly as a vehicle
for wealth. After Kate's outbreak about the viciousness
of society. she and Milly tacitly agree to hold up protec-
tive masks while they are with other people. but “it was
when they called each other's attention to their ceasing to
pretend. it was then that what they were keeping back was most
in the air” (11:139). Only Densher reacts to Milly's
struggle in an unexpected way: he too initially fails to
value her humanity. but her final illness is the catalyst
which sparks his moral growth. Although Milly's greatest
sin may be a pride which results in an overwrought sense of
privacy. it is a remarkably fertile sin. opening the possi-
bility of moral reorientation to those around her.

Milly's worst error can thus be defined. not as a mis-
taken evaluation of humanity or her own personal worth. but
as an incorrect estimation of the quality of the fulfillment
society can offer. Nevertheless. her initial acceptance of
Lancaster Gate as the fullness of life soon pales in the
pink light of her ”curiously soon” apotheosis. Standing

before the Bronzino. which is a portrait of a ”very great

43
personage” who is ”dead. dead. dead." Milly finds social
achievement vanishing into mortality: ”1 shall never be
better than this." she exclaims (1:221). Her despair over
society's neglect of her humanity causes her to visit Sir
Luke Strett. whose later counterpart is Sir Henry Harcourt-
Reilly in T. S. Eliot's The Cocrail Eerhy. Sir Luke's
apostolic mission is to convince Milly that life is worth-
while. even in an antagonistic society. After undergoing

”James's equivalent for a confessional."46

Milly makes the
positive decision ”to live. if one would” rather than the
more negative 'not to die if one could.‘ It is important
technically that her decision take this form: as James
points out in the "Preface". ”the poet 2Q2L£.be concerned
with the act of dying" (I:vi). Milly. concerned with the
act of living. takes Sir Luke's prescription to do as she
pleases seriously. She is the only character who adopts
that prescript. and thus is the only character who can be
considered free from a self-imposed pattern of action. Kate
follows her father's plans. Densher follows Kate's scheme:
Susan has given herself to Milly. Marian to her children. and
Maud to the members of society. Milly alone does what she
will. and like the major figure in a carpet. influences the

lesser patterns around her.

The Dgye and rhe_Trger
A comparison between Milly and Kate reveals a good
deal about their conflicting patterns of action. Matthiessen

points out the contrasts only. stressing the weight of

44
Milly's "quality” against Kate's ”quantity.“ her ”nerves"

against Kate's 'blood.'47

Ward. on the other hand. main-
tains that the two are similar in many respects although
Milly represents the ”ideal of spiritual love“ while Kate
stands for the "ideal of practical intellect.” Both girls
have similar origins: both of their mothers have died. The
two. who are in love with Densher. decide separately to
affront life at Lancaster Gate. Kate mistakes vulgarity
for magnificence. despite her disdain for the vulgar. and
Milly mistakes vulgarity for intensity of life. Milly hopes
that society will somehow compensate for mortality. and Kate

48 Neverthe-

wants money to compensate for "narrow feeling.”
less. Kate knows precisely what she wants from Lancaster
Gate and how to get it. whereas Milly drifts into the
establishment with an undefined desire for people. or. what
is broader still. for 'life.' Milly is the odd character
in a set of fortune hunters who can easily understand Kate's
search for wealth. but cannot fathom Milly's troubled spirit.
Here. as elsewhere. James juxtaposes ”moral beauty" with a
”worldly kind”: ”it is one of his deepest convictions that
‘you cannot have both at the same time."49
The attitudes with which Maud Lowder and Susan String-
ham approach their charges indicate why one girl is free
while the other is not. As Ward points out. the two chaperons
are distorted reflections: Maud's vulgarity adequately re-

flects Kate's 'tarnishment.” just as Susan's sentimentality

reflects Milly's inward beauty.50 Susan Stringham

45
over-romanticizes Milly's position. yet respects her human
value as Lancaster Gate does not. She approaches Milly with
the ”single alarm" that she ”really might act on her com-
panion clumsily and coarsely.” Her ”inspiring thought“ is
to ”leave E41113] untouched . . . because no touch . . .
however light. however just. however earnest and anxious
. . . would be anything but an ugly smutch upon perfection"
(1:112). Susan pursues a ”general surrender” to Milly's
greatness in which she completely renounces her personal
concerns. James is mildly ironic about her renunciation:
”she honestly believed that she was thus supremely equipped
for leading Milly's own [life] ” (1:113). Nevertheless.
Susan is sincere: unlike Maud Lowder. she wishes in no way
to tamper with.her charge's life. and prefers to efface
herself than to curtail Milly's freedom. The nature of
their relationship transmutes the persistent profit-gain
question into one of giving and taking on an intensely per-
sonal basis. Milly has the emotional support and under-
standing from Susan which Kate completely misses in Maud
Lowder. Although Leon Edel advances evidence for what he
calls a Jamesian ”vampire” syndrome in which one person

51 James's

flourishes while his companion wastes away.
sympathetic portrayal of Susan's character seems to exclude
her from that category. Susan is not a parasite: she con-
tributes more to Milly's life than to her death. In con-
trast to Susan. Maud Lowder treats Kate as if she were a

piece of merchandise: Kate is used as an attractive display

46
to lure wealth and prestige to Lancaster Gate. Maud deals
in human affection and profits by its violation. She demands
that Kate take the unnatural position of disowning her
father and Densher for more tangible assets. Kate. who has
learned her lesson well. seeks to profit from her aunt's
dubious generosity to the final desiccation of her spirit.
In attempting to retain some fragment of her emotional life
she deludes herself into believing that she risks everything
for love. whereas in fact she risks everything -- even Den-
sher -- for the sake of Maud's protection and Milly's money.
The different ways in which Milly and Kate make use of
Susan and Maud illustrate the contrasting attitudes of the
two chaperons. Kate takes advantage of Maud's wealth and
prestige. a selfish act which is an accepted part of Lan-
caster Gate society: Milly “works” ”dear old Susie” for
emotional support and companionship. Susan. however. offers
to ”go anywhere . . . in the world” with Milly. whereas
Maud only offers the means to what she believes Kate should
want. Milly's actions are thereby open-ended. while Kate's
limitations are set from the very beginning. The two
chaperon-protégé relationships become mirror images when
one considers the type of advantage offered on each side.
True. both Maud and Susan offer protection and support:
nevertheless. it is the younger Milly who proffers finan-
cial aid to her companion. while it is the older Maud who
provides the same service for Kate. Thus similar dangers

exist for each pair. but Susan willingly gives up her

47
personal concerns out of love for Milly. while Kate is
forced to give up love for Maud's money. Neither Kate nor
Susan can afford a tangible return. Kate offers her ex-
quisite appearance as a precious ornament to Lancaster Gate:
Susan's offering. consisting of a wealth of unsophisticated
knowledge about the world. is even less negotiable. Yet
between Milly and Susan there is a fine rapport which does
not exist between the others. Milly is free as her finan-
cial counterpart. Maud. or her youthful counterpart. Kate.
is not. In fact. James particularly states in the ”Preface”
that he intended to endow Milly with ”a strong and special
implication of liberty. liberty of action. of choice. of

appreciation,” which no one else in the novel possesses

(1313‘).

Merton Densher

After such knowledge. what forgiveness? Think now

History has many cunning passages. contrived corridors

And issues. deceives with whispering ambitions . . .
"Gerontion' -- T. S. Eliot

Merton Densher. so beautifully blessed by Milly's last
benediction. seems on first analysis the least deserving.
He. however. casts only a slightly lesser light in the novel
than Milly herself. and certainly a greater one than Kate.
He has. in fact. been called the central dramatic charac-
ter.52 Like all of James's observers. he takes an inordi-
nate amount of time to decide to act: the most delicately
wrought descriptions of Densher's suffering are only found
late in the novel. when he reaches his moral impasse over
Milly and first achieves a measure of consciousness. Be-
fore that point. he is a man without a will. a man who sur-
renders his entire being to Kate's firm direction. Just as
Milly mistakenly believes she has found life at Lancaster
Gate. Densher believes he has found the same quality in
Kate. "Having so often concluded on the fact of his weak-
ness . . . for life -- his strength merely for thought"
(1:51). he is attracted to Kate. who "had more life than

he to react from.” The differences between Kate and Den-

sher are so strongly emphasized that although Densher is

48

49
‘under Kate's control. their patterns of life appear to be
dissimilar from the beginning. As already noted. Kate's
and Milly's differing attitudes towards using people and to-
wards changing their goals set them apart: it is likely.
therefore. that Densher. who is so different from Kate. may
be similar to Milly in ways that finally preserve him from
succumbing totally to the Lancaster Gate ethos.

Neither Milly nor Densher are as much at home in Eng-
lish society as is Kate. Milly is the last scion of one of
the fine old families of New York: Densher has spent his
early years abroad in ”strange countries” until his enroll-
ment at Cambridge. Densher's father. who served as ”resi-
dent or occasional” chaplin for ”twenty settlements of the
English" abroad. ”had for years the unusual luck of never
wanting a billet" (1:92). Densher's mother. who bears a
strong resemblance to Hilda. the dove girl in Hawthorne's
The Marble Eehh. was a copyist with a ”happy natural gift”
for the old masters. In contrast to the slight. charming
description of Mrs. Densher. Kate's mother is mentioned as
suffering. at the least. under the cross of her husband's
”plausibility.” Kate had accompanied her mother in her
"brief but repeated retreats” to Dresden. Florence. and
Biarritz. where she received her training in the ”weak and
eXpensive attempts at economy” she hopes to escape at Lan-
caster Gate. Kate. while still young. has had a taste of
the fashionable world where lack of money is a real hin-

drance to happiness. Densher's upbringing was simple. and

50
well within his family's means: he is probably only slightly
more conscious of the role money plays in life than Milly.
who possesses more than sufficient means. Milly's resources
are so great that material things come cheap. and lose their
meaning: Densher. as an impecunious journalist. is so re-
conciled to his perpetual lack of funds that he is free to
pursue his dreamy intellectual existence regardless of his
material standing. Kate. however. who can sense in the ab-
stract ”how poor you might become when you minded so much
the absence of wealth” (1:34) does mind terribly. Her con-
cern for wealth and the unhealthy moral atmosphere to which
she early became accustomed sets her apart from Milly and
Densher.

The attitudes which Kate. Densher. and Milly hold with
respect to wealth are similar to those they hold with re-
spect to trust. Kate. whose nature is the least trusting
because of her impoverishment. demands Densher's ”beauty
of trust” as a guarantee for her "freedom of action." She
trusts no one. not even herself: her insecurity is demon-
strated by her compulsive desire to have everything and
everyone under the control of her master plan. In reality.
Densher's "beauty of trust” as well as his lack of money
result from passivity: he does not attempt to examine the
possible effects of the assent he accords Kate. Milly alone
possesses the beauty of trust which cannot be demanded.
but can only be given spontaneously. The eventual fate of

each character can be predicted in terms of his degree of

51
trust and attitude to wealth. Kate. who trusts no one. must
find emotional satisfaction in wealth. Densher willingly
trusts Kate until he discovers that she is more interested
in wealth than in the human quality. when he changes his
allegiance to Milly and cedes his inheritance to Kate. Once
Milly's assumption that everyone possesses generosity of
spirit is falsified. life becomes too difficult for her to
continue: the disparity which Kate engineers between the
mask and the reality leads to Milly's death. When one grasps
the utter depravity of Kate's scheme. it is difficult to
agree with Stephen Spender that ”harsh. logical. unscru-
pulous puritanism” causes the death of so many Jamesian

characters.53

Milly's world-view is out of joint with Lan-
caster Gate materialism. but to blame her for that would
be to condone Kate's actions.

The first step in Densher's recognition of his re-
sponsibility for his part in Milly's predicament occurs in
Venice when he suddenly understands how strongly he objects
to the quality of his relationship with Kate. He realizes
that "to be in real danger with her would have had another
quality" (11:175): because he has forfeited his precious
freedom of action. they are equal partners in nothing. The
meaning of his ”so extremely manipulated state? is that
"he was perpetually bent to her will" (11:176): "it was
not in the least doing -- and that had been his notion of
his life -- anything he himself had conceived.” Worst of

all. Kate's talent for life. which he has so honestly admired.

52

is precisely what has so utterly obliterated his own. ”poor
weak thing of the occasion” though it be.

The proof of a decent reaction in him against

so much passivity was. with no great richness.

that he at least knew -- knew. that is. how he

was and how little he liked it as a thing

accepted in mere helplessness. (11:176)
His natural reaction against being manipulated is more
decent than he ever perceives. During his self-examination.
he recognizes both the precariousness of his delicate re-
lationship with Milly and his subservience to Kate's goals
of wealth and prestige. Despite the fact that it was Kate
who had so perched him at the pinnacle of his false position
he knows that he alone is responsible for holding Milly
there with him.

If he took off his hand. the hand that at least

helped to hold it together. the whole queer fab-

ric that built him in would fall away in a min-

ute and admit the light. (11.175)
His resentment at Kate for ”ridiculously exposing" him and
then abandoning him to exploit the dying Milly leads him
to further dismay at his lack of freedom: "whereas he had
done absolutely everything that Kate had wanted. she had
done nothing whatever that he had” (11:177). In short. he
realizes that he is being used: the psychological price he
is paying is so great that he is finally prompted to pose
the crucial question “of whether he had really no will left.”

After considering the import of this question. he de-
cides to test both Kate's sincerity and the existence of his
own will by demanding an act of trust from her. If he is

able to defy Kate by initiating an action which she has not

53
sanctioned. then he indeed possesses a remnant of freedom:
the exercise of his own will power removes him from com-
plete subordination to Kate. as well as from the cycle of
passivity which is to a great measure responsible for the
elements of success in her plan. His movement of will is
symptomatic of the ”gulf . . . opening between him and

Kate."54

and his decision to demand her ”beauty of trust”
signals his adoption of the role of choice-giver. which is
in direct opposition to Kate's part as role-giver. Once

he begins to lose his beauty of trust in Kate's moti-
vations. her freedom of action is questioned and threatened:
thus when she reiterates that she risks "everything“ for

his sake and the success of her scheme. he is able to re-
tort ”I thought you exactly contend that. with your aunt

so bamboozled. you risk nothing!” (II:197). His answer
clearly displays his newly-formulated suspicion of her
motivations and his fear that it is he who risks everything.
especially since ”it was the first time since the launching
of her wonderful idea” that she had been ”at a loss” (II:197).
Following up his advantage. he demands that Kate demonstrate
her love for him in a positive way: it is his first re-
quest that she risk something for hrh. He fails to see.
however. that Kate's gift of herself is not freely given.
and thereby loses its value: it is part of a business pact.
in which Densher agrees to tell lies for her. He. in

effect. is using her as brutally as she is him. and balances

the positive worth of his new freedom by meeting her on her

54
own terms of profit-loss.

When Kate finally leaves Densher alone in Venice with
tacit instructions to bring the deception of Milly to
fruition. he. like Lambert Strether. must cope with a con-
trol which is strong though distant. Unlike Strether. how-
ever. who feels reluctant to use his opportunity in Paris
to gain experience for himself. Densher realizes that not
to ”profit” by Milly's generosity of spirit would have been
to ”go directly against it." At this point he realizes with
intense vividness the extent of his responsibility for
Milly's life and the extent to which he values her humanity.
quite aside from what she is capable of doing for him and
Kate financially. Milly's instinctive silence about her
illness tests whether she is valued in life or in death.*
Densher's new perception of Milly's value is different in
kind from the response of those at Lancaster Gate when her
silence called for a reaffirmation of her value. ”Anything
he should do or shouldn't would have close reference to
her life. which was thus absolutely in his hands” (11:252).
The terror of this thought keeps him ”motionless” for
several hours until all action ”had heard in it a vivid
'Hushi' the injunction to keep from that moment intensely
still" (11:252). He attempts ”perfect tact” for several
weeks. keeping everything in ”the key of the absolutely
settled.” until Lord Mark's appearance provokes a corres-
pondingly intense silencer from the two women at the

palace. Lord Mark evokes the evil which all feared by

SS
naming the true relationship between Kate and Densher
and their unholy alliance against Milly. No silence is per-
fect enough at this point to control the evil or to pre-
serve Milly's life. In order to fulfill his pact with Kate
to "tell any lie" she requires. Densher remains in Venice
after Lord Mark's revelation to 'prove' to Milly that Kate's
absence means nothing to him. and that Lord Mark's state-
ments are false. Yet. he realizes that his staying in
Venice is literally agarnsr Milly: as F. C. Crews notes.
this realization. in which he has finally ”admitted a dis-
parity between Kate's aim and Milly's welfare.” is an im-

portant step in his eventual condemnation of Kate.55

Only
when he makes his final appearance before Milly does he
redeem his hypocrisy. Despite Susan Stringham's plea. he
cannot lie directly to Milly to save her life: her know-
ledge of his part in Kate's scheme destroys his false
appearance. He. at last. is true to her. but the shock of
the original deception is lethal for Milly: she dies be-
cause she is valued more in death than in life. Her atti-
tude during their last interview preserves his honesty: she.
with ”divine trust and inscrutable mercy." has demanded
neither a refutation of Lord Mark's accusations nor an ex-
planation of Kate's absence. and thus has not forced Den-
sher to lie to her. He is therefore spared the necessity of
breaking his pact with Kate by being excused from saying one

word of the truth.

56

Densher QEQ.£E§.DQ!§

The nature of Densher's initial rebellion against
Kate in Venice lays the pattern for his final rebellion.
which is successful enough to damn Kate and save himself.
Like Kate. he is trapped in a purely static situation: if
he acts at all. it must be in accordance with a prescribed
role. Kate. however. underestimates Densher as much as Milly:
she does not suspect that the narrow circumstances which
hedge Densher will prompt a growth of will power and a
desire for freedom. although she is forewarned by his demand
for a proof of her love. In addition. she depends too
heavily on his honor and his loyalty to preserve his sub-
ordination to her will. In the exigency of keeping his word
to Kate after adopting Milly's values. Densher formulates
another test for Kate and a plan to remove the stigma of
Milly's death from their projected marriage. Before Milly's
will is read. he offers marriage to Kate to ”right everything
that's wrong”: in effect. he asks her to guarantee that her
love for him does not depend on money. Kate. whose goals
have not changed. refuses. His offer is parallel to his
first demand of her in Venice because it requires a demon-
stration of Kate's beauty of trust in his freedom of action:
nevertheless. because his proposal is not a business deal
and guarantees no just return for her in the profit-loss
market to which she is accustomed. it is refused. Her re-
fusal indicates to Densher that her motives in the scheme

had little connection with his happiness. Her analysis

57
of their situation illustrates her moral stasis:

I call it perfect -- from my original point of

view. I'm just where I was: and you must

give me some better reason than you do. my

dear. for yehr not being. (11:348)

Kate has not changed: Milly's death has made no impression
on her. other than presenting the possibility of inheriting
money. Densher's offer of love is meaningless without
wealth and social prestige. She cannot comprehend why Den-
sher wishes to change their plans. since she has in no

way altered or jeopardized her position. Kate has no
”beauty of trust” in Milly's generosity.

When Densher does receive notification of his inheri-
tance from Milly's lawyers. he subjects Kate to a final test
in which she repeats the damning choice in favor of wealth
which necessitated the scheme against Milly in the first
place. He sends Kate the unopened notification. Since
Milly's money never held the same importance to him as to
Kate. profiting by her death becomes supremely distasteful.
He has gone through the final. unbearable pain of purification
in their last interview. and has been forgiven: thus to
accept the inheritance would be to use and rejoice in her
death. an attitude which he has renounced. For Densher.
the pricelessness of Milly's lost humanity can in no way be
compensated for by any gain in wealth. Therefore. when
Kate commits the ugly vulgarity of opening the notification.
he offers her two alternatives. With her consent. he will

formally refuse the behest: without her consent to refuse

it. he will simply ignore its existence. Either way. he

58

refuses to profit by Milly. The two alternatives allow him
to remain true to his word that he will absolutely follow
Kate's commands. while not violating Milly's memory. As
Densher says. her "liberty" is ”in every way complete."
Kate. of course. does not consent to return the inheritance.
yet she indicates that if Densher will swear not to be in
love with Milly's memory. she eTTT consent. Just as Densher
could not deny Kate to Milly. he cannot do the opposite: he
makes ”every penny" of Milly's behest over to Kate in com-
pensation for her loss of him.

In the final analysis. Kate has learned one lesson:
she is correct. when leaving Densher. in saying ”We shall
never be again as we were.” She has not changed while Den-
sher has. Matthiessen feels that James left Kate's decision
about accepting the money so highly ambiguous that even the
perspicacious reader would be impressed primarily by uncer-

tainty s 56

The aura of ambiguity at the end is intentional.
of course. but Kate's character has been previously so well
defined that there is no real question about her final
action. Despite the liberty of choice Densher gives Kate.
there is no other alternative for her but to choose wealth
over love.

Even though she is possessed of the inheritance. Kate
is free neither of Lancaster Gate nor of her family problems.
The father. speechless with terror. will be little helped
by the money. Monetarily. Kate is well off: Spiritually.

she is bankrupt. Densher is no richer than when he started.

59
but his understanding has been immensely enriched. Leo
Bersani is quite mistaken to maintain that Densher's actions
show no change of personality at a1157: Densher truly
"has arrived at the moral perception of the meaning of

. . . loss and renunciation."58

Kate remains trapped in
her pattern: Densher has been able to exercise free will
without breaking his word to Kate or being disloyal to Milly.
With the dove's help. he has broken out of the detrimental

pattern and affirmed his humanity.

CHAPTER III. THE GOLDEN BOWL

The Golden hehT also deals with the theme of con-
flicting moral values. In ID§.EL£3§ 2E.£h§.22!§: the in-
dictment is primarily against a rapacious society where the
pressures of the system are so great as to ameliorate even
Kate Croy's responsibility for the evil she engenders. In
the later novel. however. the established social system is
less to blame: guilt is focussed directly on the charac-
ters themselves. who pervert human Values as they attempt
to set up their own social entity. Maggie. for instance.
is clearly responsible for the predicament which traps Char-
lotte. the Prince. and Adam. whereas the veil of spiritual
fragility cast over Milly is simply a backdrop for the social
pressures which cause her death.

In many ways the two novels are mirror images and so
form a complementary pair. The Geldeh herT proposes an al-
ternative to death for its heroine. and explores various
plot ramifications suggested in the earlier novel. Milly's
personality crumbles when her trust is violated: Maggie
is strong enough to use her precious knowledge of evil as
the basis for life itself. Both Charlotte and Kate achieve
wealth. Charlotte by marriage. and Kate by refusing Merton
Densher: yet Kate appears more interested in a fortune than
Charlotte. who is happy to indulge her love for the Prince

60

61
under any circumstances. Kate must consider the demands of
her family in all of her decisions. whereas Charlotte. who
is entirely independent. need offer no extenuation for her
conduct. Even in the end. the contrast between the novels
is clear: the Prince's newly developed sense of morals is
bolstered by Maggie's continuing presence. while Densher.
who has shifted his allegiance to a dead girl. must rely
on a memory to reinforce his actions.

In the following chapter. Charlotte. the Prince. and
Maggie will be discussed in terms of their varying moral
orientations. Charlotte. like Kate. is a circular charac-
ter: she considers the renewal of her intimacy with the
Prince as a return to their old relationship. and cannot
understand the principle of growth which makes both Maggie
and the Prince change radically. She is a role-giver who
wishes to drown Maggie in a bath of innocence and who ex-
pects the Prince to adhere to her arrangements. Maggie.
on the other hand. tries to avoid circumscribing the actions
and dignity of the others by hiding her suspicions about the
Prince and Charlotte: she is like Milly. who masks her
growing social awareness under the guise of dovishness. The
Prince. who depends on the others to define his moral orien-
tation for him. follows Charlotte's guidance until he is
confronted with Maggie's awareness of the situation. when
he is forced to be personally accountable for his own

aetions e

Charlotte Stant

And last. the rending pain of re-enactment

Of all that you have done. and been: the shame

Of motives late revealed. and the awareness

Of things ill done and done to other's harm

Which once you took for exercise of virtue.
”Little Gidding" -- T. S. Eliot

Charlotte Stant occupies an anomalous position in The
Golden EQEl' she is the only character who is essentially
rootless. who possesses neither family nor tradition to cir-
cumscribe her actions. The Prince provides the one strong
emotional attachment which influences her decisions: yet
even he is not a purely attractive force. since her fear of
a penniless marriage impels her to flee his company. Never-
theless. once he becomes engaged to the wealthy Maggie and
is 'safe.‘ Charlotte hastens across continents to spend one
final hour alone with him before his marriage makes their
relationship untenable. Her unexpected appearance in Eng-
land is ostensibly for Maggie's wedding. yet. ominously.
she is the thirteenth guest at the ceremony. Maggie inno-
cently believes that her friendship with Charlotte is close.
although she refuses to recognize any aspect of Charlotte's
character not consonant with her own simplistic viewpoint.
Fanny Assingham knows enough about Charlotte's past rela-
tionship with the Prince to be concerned about her presence.

62

63

but even Fanny. who functions as the reader's surrogate in
the novel by pondering the vital questions and insights which
a perceptive reader might have. is unable to untangle the
intricate relationships entailed by Charlotte's arrival.59
Maggie is. at the end. the only character with the requisite
perceptiveness to understand the entire complex situation.
Since Charlotte has shown different sides of her per-
sonality to the Prince and to Maggie. her marriage to Adam
Verver poses the problem of maintaining three conflicting
roles at the same time. As Maggie's friend. the Prince's
mistress and Mr. Verver's wife. Charlotte is forced to guard
against inconsistencies in her conduct which would abrogate
any one of the roles. To spoil one would be to Spoil all:
Charlotte cannot act freely because she is too concerned with
satisfying the demands of the roles. She is thus bound. not
by tradition or by family. but by self-imposed patterns of
action which themselves have no validity. since she lacks
the freedom to express her love for the Prince. the honesty
to be a sincere friend. and the loyalty to be a wife. Be-
cause each role is structured to fit a particular situation.
no one can relate to her in all three roles at once. When
Maggie inevitably grasps the falsity behind her friend's
behavior. Charlotte discovers that no one role suffices to
make her happy. To have married the Prince would have meant
the loss of wealth: to be Maggie's friend means the loss of
the Prince. The compass of her very narrow. gilded cage is

the necessity of totally accepting the role of wife to a

64
man she does not love. Charlotte is thus not free to change
her modes of behavior for fear of endangering her possession
of wealth and her relationship with the Prince. Like Kate.
who also has to maintain a set of highly structured atti-
tudes. Charlotte is not totally blind to the effects her
acts may have on other people. but since these effects are
secondary to her own gratification. they are subject to
rationalization. Just as Kate insists that undeceiving
Milly would cause her death. Charlotte considers the

maintenance of the Ververs' innocence to be a sacred trust.

I22.Mé812 Circle

Charlotte eventually commits three moral errors which
are based on her false assumptions that self-gratification
is justified (1) if she alone can take the blame for con-
tinuing a relationship: (2) if she satisfies her needs os-
tensibly for someone else's sake: or (3) if she can take
advantage of a situation while evading responsibility for it.
At least one of these justifications is used for every
action which traps her in a cycle of repetitive motions.
Her first misjudgment concerns her uneXpected return: she
believes that she may safely enjoy the Prince's company
without fear of involvement. although their relationship is
prefigured by earlier intimacies. Secondly. she is con-
vinced that her acceptance of Adam Verver's proposal for
the sake of his wealth is justified because she sets Maggie

at ease about her father's loneliness. Thirdly. Charlotte

65
believes that Maggie's neglect of her husband for her father's
sake is sufficient license to resume her old relationship with
the Prince. All of these misjudgments can be traced to
her attachment to the past. which. like her role-playing.
is a substitute for family and social tradition as a guide to
action. In contrast to the Prince. who attempts to enter his
marriage as a rabula reee. Charlotte maintains her old roles
while assuming the new. Her belief that previous patterns
of action need not be relinquished restricts her development
and causes her entrapment. Too shackled to the past to ad-
just to the present. she ends as she began -- bereft of the
Prince. coping with the bleakness of American City. To be
sure. she possesses the wealth she lacked at first. but her
new stance as cultural missionary is just another role.

The unexpectedness of Charlotte's appearance gives the
opening of the novel the tone of a fairy tale. The Princess
waves her magic wand (Maggie writes to Charlotte about her
wedding) and the fairy godmother materializes to bestow a
gift. Unfortunately the gift has a crack. and the handsome
Prince is in league with the godmother rather than the beau-
tiful Princess. Fanny Assingham. who correctly infers that
Charlotte initially left the Prince to ”save herself” and
to ”save him.” attributes the virtuous desire to Charlotte
to "see Maggie through" her discovery of the Prince's true.
amoral nature. It is evident at the end of the novel that
without Charlotte. the Prince and Princess would never have
achieved a viable relationship. but Charlotte's service to

Maggie is simply a justification for preserving her own

66
past relationship with the Prince.

Charlotte makes her unexpected journey. not to be pre-
sent at Maggie's wedding. but to see the Prince alone for
the last time. What she wants ”is that it shall always
be with [him] -- so that he'll never be able quite to
get rid of” the fact that she has traveled expressly to see
him (1:97). She has arranged to have "one hour alone” with
him. in order to ”give" herself away "for nothing.” Her
desire to be alone with the Prince "as we are now and as
we used to be” is an expression of her attempt to perpetuate
the past. She is safe from the temptation of a deeper
relationship because the Prince has agreed to marry Maggie:
yet it was precisely this temptation which made their ear-
lier meetings so enjoyable. The Prince does not concur
with Charlotte's attempt to resurrect the past: he is
”amused” and offers her only the impersonal response of his
companionship and conversation. All that he is in a posi-
tion to give her is a rrcerdo of their afternoon together.
Her refusal of the memento with the words "you don't refer.
T refer” underlines her attempt to recapture the charm of
their past adventures together while relieving him of the
responsibility of affirming his involvement with her. On
her own terms. her self-gratification is justified because
it seems to affect no one but herself. In reality. her
return must also affect the Prince because her gratifi-
cation depends on his compliance with her wishes: her

attempt to exclude him from involvement is paradoxical

67

because she tries to relive the past while leaving out the
most important constituents -- the Prince and the possi-
bility of a deeper relationship with him. She too wishes
to give Amerigo a memento. but such a one would refer to
the whole of their past relationship and not merely to their
afternoon together. The Prince. with his decision to build
a "new history.” feels such a gift to be "impossible.” The
exquisite. cracked golden bowl might bring evil: he would
be afraid for his "happiness.” his "safety.” and even his
marriage. Any gift he might give Charlotte. on the other
hand. would be "perfect." At the end of their afternoon
together. he assures her that she too ”hherf marry. un-
wittingly prefiguring his gift to her of the perfect Mr.
Verver. who is a "reel galantuomo” and "simply the best man"
he's ever seen. Charlotte. on her side. ”would marry . . .
to have something from the[Princ§] in all freedom" (1:121).

Charlotte pays for the wealth and social position she
enjoys with her marriage by making a convenience of herself
to the Ververs. (Kate Croy errs in a similar way by allowing
herself to be used to increase her aunt's prestige and her
father's and sister's wealth. yet Kate is impelled by a
strong. if misplaced. sense of family loyalty.) Mr. Verver
proposes. not out of love for Charlotte. but to ”put Maggie
at peace.” Charlotte is thus free to accept the proposal
for Maggie's sake and not out of love for Mr. Verver: she
marries a situation. not a man. ”The significant private
relationship which James values so highly is . . . con-

sumed in the exigencies of form” for Charlotte and Adam:

68
”they marry for form's sake and continue to live for form's

sake."60

Charlotte cannot escape the form without sacri-
ficing the enjoyment of wealth. and so her personal develop-
ment is strictly limited both by her resistance to relin-
quishing the past and by her entrapment in a sterile rela-
tionship. Charlotte thus agrees to "see Maggie through”

in return for a fortune and a prestigious social position
made doubly palatable -- and doubly dangerous -- by the
Prince's nearness. Her headlong rush to England and her
confession to the Prince of her continuing attachment demon-
strate that Adam Verver's choice of a wife is a dubious one.
He. at least. is honest in revealing the basis of his pro-
posal to Charlotte: he and Maggie are essentially "good
children.” innocent and trusting. Charlotte does not
reciprocate in kind. Like Kate. who hides her love for Den-
sher for the sake of wealth and conceals her engagement from
Milly. Charlotte does not reveal her past relationship with
the Prince to the Ververs. She attempts to absolve herself
of responsibility for the concealment. however. by offering
the Prince's telegram of congratulations to Adam. "E2.E2§£
lsflmaliresaarsssemsm: hutlaawcharmedwm
courage ehg almost surprised é£.EX.Q!E:' it reads (1:290).
The message is ambiguous. Charlotte interprets it to mean
either that ”without her his career was up-hill work for him
. . . on behalf of a good appearance." or that. if she
should imagine herself a ”danger.” he is ”prepared in ad-
vance.“ Since Mr. Verver refuses to read the telegram.

Charlotte feels ”that her position. in the matter of

69
responsibility was . . . inattackably straight” (1:291).
In reality. it is not: her deceptively casual offer to
reveal an important piece of information which might have
"dished” a marriage based on convenience is. after all.
hardly a substitute for a responsible confession of the
truth.

Charlotte thus believes she has cleared herself of the
onus of responsibility by giving Adam Verver the opportunity
to learn that she will become her former suitor's step-
mother: any complaints of violated trust can be referred to
his refusal to read the incriminating message. Likewise.
Charlotte's decision to resume her past relationship with
the Prince is the fault of their neglectful epper: ”such a
relation . . . was never before in the world thrust upon
two such well-meaning creatures" (1:303). Her philosophy.
as Frederick Crews points out. is one of "enlightened

fatalism"61

and her insistence that they must be guided by the
Ververs' indifference is an instance of her ability to turn
being so placed to her own advantage while blaming her beha-
vior on the actions of others. She makes the most of her si-
tuation while evading the responsibility for her own actions.
but accepts the responsibility of maintaining the Ververs'
indifference so that she can remain intimate with the Prince.
The joy she experiences in resurrecting her past relation-
ship with Amerigo is evident in her greeting to him on the

day they make their sacred pledge to preserve Maggie's and

Adam's innocence: ”It's the charm . . . of trying again

70
the old feelings. They come back . . . Everything comes
back" (1:300). The situation in which Charlotte finds her-
self is not. as she mistakenly senses. an objective correla-
tive for her ”old feelings.” since she has forfeited the
grounds of her previous intimacy with the Prince by
marrying Adam Verver. When. "as closely confronted as any
hour of their easier past" Charlotte and Amerigo join in a
”passionately sealed" pledge to maintain the Ververs'
"sweet simplicity" with "conscious care” (1:312). they are
like Kate and Densher. scheming to preserve Milly's happi-
ness -- or blindness -- by not revealing their intimacy.
Jean Kimball. who favors Charlotte for the heroine of The
Goldeh heel. proposes that a ”deeper irony" would exist if
in fact Charlotte and Amerigo were sincere in their pledge.62
What makes their pledge so dangerous and so selfish is
that they are sincere: without Maggie's innocence. their
companionship would be impossible.

Kate and Charlotte. with their manifold errors and
selfishnesses. have. as the Bloomsbury shopkeeper says.
"seen . . . too much.” They have learned that precious
opportunities are few. and must be used expeditiously.
Unfortunately. the great opportunity for each to achieve her
desired state of wealth and social prestige depends upon the
manipulation of another human being. Kage and Charlotte sin
against Milly and Maggie not by purposely wishing them evil.
for the schemes have the advantage of being to everyone's

good if not found out. but by using innocence for their own

71

purposes. In both cases. however. they are mistaken about
the capacity of innocence for knowledge and change. Kate and
Charlotte not only pattern their actions to fit a circular
framework of never-changing attitudes. but assume that the
blind innocence of their victims is incapable of development.
When Maggie and Milly do learn to expand their viewpoints

and gain new perspectives. Kate and Charlotte are caught

in the sterile roles they themselves have constructed.

The Prince

Think
Neither fear nor courage saves us. Unnatural vices
Are fathered by our heroism. Virtues
Are forced upon us by our impudent crimes.
”Gerontion” -- T. S. Eliot

Charlotte's sudden appearance on the eve of the Prince's
marriage is a somewhat ominous answer to his instinct to
”do something or other. before it was too late. for him-
self” (1:20) before he need accommodate his actions to the
mystifying ethos of his new wife and father-in-law. His
mood has in it the ”grimness of a crunched key in the
strongest lock that could be made“ (1:5). The Prince is
not unwilling to marry Maggie. but feels his freedom com-
promised as never before: Charlotte's materialization. and
with her the aura of familiar moral standards which must be
given up for the Ververs' more unfathomable expectations. is
a breath of the past. He recalls that he has never been
”tested”: neither he nor the Ververs know ”how many pounds.
shillings and pence he had to give” (1:23). Charlotte.
who has a ”likeness to some long. loose silk purse. well
filled with gold pieces” (1:47) Te his test. Just as
Charlotte is tempted by material wealth to forfeit a
penniless marriage with her lover. so Amerigo is later

72

73
tempted by Charlotte's ostensible wealth of life to forfeit
Maggie's more intangible assets as a human being. It is
not until Maggie relinquishes her innocence that she learns
”how many pounds. shillings and pence” he gives up in
sacrificing the ”long. loose silk purse.” Face to face with
this first test. however. the Prince remains true to his
determination to create ”some new history that should
. . . contradict. and even if need be flatly dishonor. the
old” (1:16). He is primarily concerned with ameliorating
the past infamy of his family. yet aware that “the happiest
reigns . . . are the reigns without any history." he pre-
serves an air of detachment from Charlotte.

The introductory section of The Golden Bowl presents

 

the three qualities of the Prince's nature which explain the
changing aspects of his relationship with Charlotte and
Maggie. His naive attempt to create a new personal history
simply by disregarding the old. his inability to fathom the
Ververs' expectations. and his lack of a moral sense predi-
cate his dependence on an emotional attachment to provide
guidance.

A character's attitude toward his personal history has
an important role in determining the type of moral growth
he will eXperience. 1n James's early novels. the confron-
tation between American and European mores may be understood
in terms of a clash between developing history and formalized
history (tradition). Even in the later novels. where the

international theme is subordinate. the Americans are

74
noticeably uninfluenced by their personal history. The be-
havior of Kate. an English girl. is strongly swayed by
her father's peccancies and her strong family loyalty. where-
as the American Milly Theale exhibits only an external
remembrance of her dead family in her ”helplessly expensive”
mourning attire. The absence of any determining factor
intruding into the present from the past leaves Milly
entirely free to construct a new personal history. Char-
lotte. whose Americanism has been blunted by a continental
education. allows her past relationship with the Prince to
determine her mores and so is just as bound as Kate. The
Prince. who is the scion of an old Roman family which boasts
of "crimes.” "follies.” an "infamous waste of money." and a
”wicked Pope.” views his marriage to the American Maggie as
a way to satisfy his "desire for some new history that
should . . . contradict the old.” The Prince is perhaps
the sole representative of his family to gain a fortune with-
out committing ”crimes" or ”follies”: nevertheless. his
hope that the past can be quashed completely is as illusory
as Charlotte's idea that it can be revived. The Ververs. who
have no past to contend with. become guardians for the his-
tory of other generations by collecting antiques. In other
words. Maggie marries the Prince for his history. It was
the ”crimes. the plunder and the waste” which made Maggie
"originally" think of him. ”It wasn't.” she tells him.
"what you call your unknown quantity. your particular self."

She knows nothing of this. as they both agree. When Maggie

75
asks the Prince. "Where . . . without your archives. annals.
infamies. would you have been?” (1:9). she points out that
without his family history. he might not have gained her
interest. and might not have possessed the same personal
quantity. The Prince's history. however. is compounded
not only of the follies of the past but the hope of the
future: as the namesake of Amerigo Vespucci. the Prince
himself is a discoverer of new territories containing un-
told wealth. 1f the metaphor is carried to its logical
conclusion. Maggie represents the new territory of America
upon which a new history can be founded. Charlotte. like
Kate Croy. is unwilling to relinquish the past: Kate cannot
escape her father's influence. and Charlotte tries to per-
petuate an old role in a new situation. Maggie has few
determinants attached to her behavior. Like Charlotte. she
initially clings to the past by attempting to maintain her
old relationship with her father. but changes abruptly when
she discovers that she has created no relationship with
Amerigo strong enough to prohibit him from returning to
hre_past relationships. She learns that the past can neither
be resurrected nor completely ignored: since life is a pro-
cess of development. the past must be continually incor-
porated into the present. The precious lesson of develop-
ment is one which Charlotte cannot learn. and one which the

Prince only begins to perceive at the close of the novel.

76

The PereonaT ReTatioh

The Prince's inability to understand the Ververs' ex-
pectations occurs because they possess a moral sense alien
to his and present a confusingly naive evaluation of his
worth. He is bewildered by the "large bland blank
assumption of merits almost beyond notation. of essential
quality and value” (1:23) which they impute to his heritage.
Nevertheless. since he is like an ”old embossed coin” valued
for its antiquity. he escapes ”being reduced to his com-
ponent parts.” Whereas he can deal with ”his own estimate"
of himself. he is at a loss to handle the Ververs' trusting
analysis of his intrinsic merits. particularly since their
analysis is based on a knowledge of his history and not of
his personality. Maggie's insistence that it isn't his
"particular self" but his past which makes him attractive
underscores the Prince's difficulty: he is eXpected. in
some mysterious way. to live up to a valuation based on a
family history which he would prefer to live down. He
appeals to Fanny Assingham to guide him through the intri-
cacies of the American moral system. for he has a "real.
honest fear of being 'off' some day. of being wrong. ELE.‘
per knowing it“ (1:30). In attempting to determine how to
satisfy the Ververs' undefined expectations. he assigns
Fanny the role which Maggie eventually undertakes. His re-
quest to Fanny ”Therefore it is that I want. 1 shall always
want. your eyes. Through rheh I wish to look” (1:30) para-
llels his final words to Maggie. ”'See!? I see nothing but

77

you." At the end of the novel. Maggie has replaced both
Fanny and Charlotte as a guide to life. His moral sense.
like a ”tortuous stone staircase.” "steep and unlighted.”
becomes accommodated to the Americans' "lightning elevator.”

After his marriage. the Prince relentlessly gathers
”impressions and generalizations" about his new life in an
attempt to gain a perspective on the Ververs' expectations
of him. Maggie senses that her husband. who worked "so
constantly for comprehension.” has a definite. if mystifying.
goal. Unfortunately. however. his ”saving up. for some
very mysterious but very fine eventual purpose. all the wis-
dom. all the answers to his questions" (1:163) is as super-
ficial and as ineffectual a learning process as Maggie's
investigation of the ”rows of volumes. in libraries” which
record the Prince's family history. Neither the Prince nor
Maggie seek a deeper understanding of the other than is re-
vealed to the general public. The Prince. in fact. finally
decides that the Ververs “were what he had once for all turned
his back on" (1:315). He finds that their bland assumption
of his value becomes tedious. and begins to use his imagi-
nation "mainly for wondering how they contrived so little
to appeal to it" (1:314). His original apprehension about
their indefinable expectations disappears as he finds he
need do nothing "worthy of the personal relation.” The
Prince is a romantic. yet unlike his ancestors is bereft
of dagger and poisoned cup. although "these were the ser-

vices that by all romantic tradition. were consecrated to

78
affection quite as much as to hate” (1:315). He has al-
ready noticed that "any EQILQEE discussion of veracity. of
loyalty" takes Maggie by surprise. and now discovers there
is no need to diSplay his loyalty.

His agreement with Charlotte to preserve the Ververs'
innocence may thus be seen as an outgrowth of his disap-
pointed romanticism as well as a reaction of his old Roman
pride. A secret pact and a relationship which makes up for
Maggie's neglect of his "personal quantity” are more satis-
fying than the "new history" which he has adopted. From
this viewpoint. the Prince is well-motivated in his reactions
to his new life: nevertheless. in compacting with Charlotte.
he has performed the action which he at first so excessively
feared. He is wrong without knowing it. However. Maggie
too is to blame: the Prince. not unreasonably. feels that
she has made him ridiculous by thrusting him into society
with Charlotte. His whole estimate of his own ”personal
quantity” is at stake. He. at least as “he constitutionally
conceived galantuomini.” could hardly go about innocently
with the charming and beautiful Mrs. Verver: that would be
to publish him as ”idiotic” or "incapable.” His pact with
her is thus the first step in making their apparent intimacy
real. In one sense. he really is motivated ”by an alert
sense of social responsibility”: he accepts the situation
which Maggie creates because she ghee need her father. Char-
lotte. on the other hand. is motivated ”by a sense of her own

needs."63

79

The Prince cannot accept his wife emotionally until
she either captures his interest or gives him something to
do ”worthy of the personal relation." When he uneXpectedly
finds her waiting for his return from Matcham in their own
home rather than in her father's. he can no longer predict
her actions or take them for granted. She eventually pre-
sents him with a mission which satisfies his romantic sense
to the utmost: he must. Maggie intimates. find out for him-
self who else in their establishment knows about his past
relationship with Charlotte. and knows that Maggie is aware
of it. If he at one point "vulgarly' complained that ”one
had never to plot or lie for them.” he now has the oppor-
tunity of doing something "worthy" of their relationship.
Like Densher. who can tell Kate nothing about his last
interView with Milly. the Prince resolves to say nothing
whatever to Charlotte about Maggie's discovery. or the
changed aspect which her discovery has given their marriage.
Replacing the pact he had with Charlotte is the new under-
standing he has with his wife. Maggie has performed a
"worthy” feat for the Prince: her care in preserving the
serenity of the two households while struggling with her
unhappy perceptiveness demonstrates to him that she con-
siders their personal relationship to be of paramount im-
portance.

In his relationships with Maggie and with Charlotte.
the Prince shows that he cannot function independently. He

is subject to the life pattern which is for the time most

80
persuasive. Like a mirror. his actions reflect the view-
points of those around him: his initial bewilderment at
the Ververs' expectations occurs because. although they pre-
sent nothing definite to react to or against. he seeks to
obliterate the few standards he has inherited by immersing
himself in their company. Charlotte's sacred pledge gives
the Prince a practical definition of his role in relation to
his wife and father-in-law. On the other hand. Maggie's
neglect of his "personal quantity" gives him only an am-
biguous clue for his behavior towards Charlotte: in fact.
Maggie's reluctance to give up her previous intimacy with
her father leaves Amerigo free to resume his former rela-
tionship with Charlotte. Not until Fanny Assingham breaks
the golden bowl does Maggie indicate what she expects of the
Prince. After that. his intense silences and solitudes are
devoted to choosing between two powerful patterns of exis-
tence. Maggie's proves to be the stronger of the two: she

vanquishes Charlotte and wins the Prince.

Maggie Verver

Who then devised the torment? Love.

Love is the unfamiliar Name

Behind the hands that wove

The intolerable shirt of flame . . .
"Little Gidding" -- T. S. Eliot

The technique which James employs in The Gplden heel
to facilitate character development seems to be responsible
for the critical disagreement about the quality of Maggie's
goodness. In the ”Preface" to the novel. James makes the
following statement:

It is the Prince who opens the door to half our

light upon Maggie. just as it is she who opens it

to half our light upon himself: the rest of our

impression . . . coming straight from the very

motion with which that act is performed. (I:viii)

Maggie is thus exposed as much by the way she phrases
her thoughts of the Prince as by the way he perceives her.
In an article entitled ”Maggie Verver: Neither Saint Nor
Witch.” Walter Wright comments pertinently that ”what gives
Maggie significance is the struggle within her and the final
resolution of that civil war": the point of the novel is
the portrayal of her psychological reversal from innocence
to- knowledge and her consequent involvement in human rela-

tionships.64

Joseph Firebaugh. however. claims that Maggie's
pretence of ignorance about her husband's affair indicates
that she. like the Prince. is “willing to build a false

81

82
world of appearances to conceal the truth about her life."
Maggie. according to Firebaugh. does not possess James's

65 Sallie Sears makes a similar analysis in The

sympathy.
Negarive Imagination: she charges that Maggie's silence

is sanctimonious. and suggests that only an open discussion
of her suspicions about the Prince and Charlotte would pre-
serve her integrity. Not only do Maggie's "acts of du-

66

plicitY‘place her beyond the reader's pity. but they re-

move her from James's sympathy. which is then bestowed upon

ChaIIOttesé7

Both Firebaugh and Sears seem to misinterpret
James's technique of recorded observation. James does not
diaplay a bias towards his hero or heroine as obviously as.
for example. Dickens. His sympathy operates under the
benign aspect of Janus. the double-faced Roman deity who
protected portals: both sides of Maggie as well as both
sides of the Prince are displayed to the reader as impar-
tially as possible. James's treatment of Charlotte is cer-
tainly kinder than his earlier portrayal of Osmond. who per-
haps possessed a similar longing for wealth and the tradi-
tion-ridden past: yet it must be noted that even in Char-
lotte's case. sympathy is expressed by means of Maggie's
Comments. rather than by means of direct authorial inter-
vention. Since evil is a social problem as well as a
product of mutually shared mistakes. James can sympathize
with Charlotte while condemning her just as he sympathizes

with Maggie while redeeming her. Both characters make

errors out of moral blindness. but Maggie remains the

83

heroine because she is capable of development.

Innocence ehg Involvement

The impression of Maggie which emerges from the first
half of the novel is unprepossessing. Seen through the
eyes of the Prince. she is a shallow little person with the
money to make him comfortable. but so inoffensive that her
fortune is not a compensation. Maggie herself admits that
she has "little limits -- terribly marked. she knew. in
the direction of saying the right things" (1:163) and
notices the Prince's evident feeling "that [French] supposed
a cleverness she was not a person to rise to” (1:6). The
possession of such limits is damning under the terms of
James's philosophy that ”to 'put' things is very exactly
and responsibly and interminably to do them” (I:xxiv).
Maggie not only lacks saxplr Telre. but according to Fanny
is impossibly innocent and must be protected: "She wasn't
born to know evil. She must never know it” (1:78). Maggie.
who has no sense of evil and small expressive force.
marries a man with no moral sense and a thirst for ”explana-
tions.” The potency of this combination becomes evident
as the Prince first underestimates. then dismisses Maggie's
internal complexities.

Maggie. whom the Prince marries for money rather than
for love. accepts the Prince for his history rather than
his ”personal quantity.” Like Isabel Archer. who marries
to finance Osmond's attitudes about life. Maggie must learn

the value of honest involvement in human relationships.

 

 

ll all I'll...
all .

84
At first. she appears to have learned the lessons of involve-
ment and responsibility to an inordinate degree. She blames
her marriage for her father's loneliness: yet her attempt
to maintain the full intimacy of their old relationship --
"she had been able to marry without breaking . . . with
her past” (11:5) -- is as erroneous as Charlotte's attempt
at transposing her past relationship with the Prince into
the present. Maggie is mistaken in accepting an immature
definition of responsibility and in believing her super-
ficial relationship with Amerigo to be valid. Like Isabel.
who learns to accept the responsibility for marrying Osmond
and befriending Pansy. Maggie must realize that she has
responsibilities toward the Prince as well as toward her
father.

Maggie's first suspicion that she has neglected her
husband for her father's sake is expressed as an ”absurd.
fantastic" reverie in which Charlotte and Amerigo pull the
family coach while the Ververs ride in state inside. When
Maggie steps down. she is amazed at the view. and determines
to make a deliberate effort to aid in pulling the coach by
expressing special attention to the Prince's activities.
Waiting for Amerigo's return from Matcham with Charlotte
at her own fireside and not. as he would have expected. at
her father's. Maggie broods over the ”freshness of relation
produced by her having administered to her husband the first
surprise to which she had ever treated him" (11:10). She

takes action on the most important questions she has ever

85
asked herself -- ”What if I've abandoned rheh [Charlotte and
Amerigé] you know? What if I've accepted too passively the
funny form of our life?” (11:25) -- by taking a detailed
interest in Charlotte's and Amerigo's Matcham adventures
from which she had initially excluded herself. Since the
Prince has seemed to have been "too absent” in spirit.
Maggie decides that she will ”be elrh him again . . . as
she doubtless hadn't been since the 'funny' changes . . .
into which they had each. as for the sake of the others.
too easily and too obligingly slipped” (11:27). With this
decision. Maggie begins to break the cycle of misplaced
responsibility in favor of achieving real involvement with
her husband. She determines. however. that since ”their
equilibrium was everything. and that it was practically pre-
carious. a matter of a hair's breadth for the loss of the
balance” (11:17). she would bring about a difference in
their relationships without anyone suspecting that she is
the cause. ”Unless she were in a position to plead definitely
that she was jealous she should be in no position to plead
decently that she was dissatisfied" (11:34). She can give
only commonplace reasons for her changed actions. Is Maggie
thus motivated purely by ”self interest.” as Sallie Sears
claims? Is it true that "to hold and keep what is precious
to her regardless of who suffers . . . she plunges into the
deepest hypocrisy“?68 Charlotte and Amerigo. who decide
to preserve Maggie's blindness to life for the gratification

of their own pleasures. seem to be the ones motivated by

86

self-interest. Their pact to preserve the Ververs' innocence
operates more for their own comfort than to mitigate Maggie's
suffering. Maggie's dissimulation. on the other hand. is
for the purpose of protecting the others: once her dis-
closure is made to the Prince. she attempts to mitigate
Amerigo's and Charlotte's suffering by supporting the human
dignity of each. Maggie. as Walter Wright puts it. "comes
outside herself”: in pitying the two. she learns unselfish-
ness.69

Maggie's decision to recapture the interest of the
Prince while maintaining the serenity of the family rela-
tionships indicates that she is beginning to break out of a
circular chain of actions characterized by the desire to
preserve intact her old closeness with her father. Her
quiet attempt to bring about a change for the better in
their situation is a more viable reaction to a set of
sterile circumstances than has been displayed by Charlotte
and Amerigo. who have both given up the Ververs and with-
drawn into their past relationship. The two make no attempt
to awaken Maggie from her innocent. trusting dream: they
take refuge in a relationship which at best has certain
social limitations and at worst cannot deepen because it
is subject to concealment. Maggie. too. at first takes
refuge in the intimacy of her old relationship with her
father. a relationship which cannot lead to maturity because
of its dependence and cannot broaden her knowledge about

life because of its protectiveness and exclusiveness. Maggie's

87
comfortable existence is finally jarred by the realization
that the ”form" which permits Maggie and Adam to remain
homebodies while allowing Charlotte and Amerigo to become
social personages provides the only validity for their
relationships. ”Ritual and fact" are indeed one to Maggie70:
as one critic has put it. Maggie makes "passions of patterns.
relationships of rituals.” but she goes ”beyond Milly to

break the vision of herself as ritual."71

Her attempt to
rearrange the ”form” of the two couples is basically an
attempt to revamp the facts.

They had taken too much for granted that their

life together required. as people in London

said. a special "form” -- which was very well

so long as the form was kept only for the out-

side world and was made no more of among them-

selves than the pretty mould of an ice pudding.

(11:2 )

A manipulation of form which leads to the perversion of
reality is seen in The Wings pr_the Dove. where Kate's and
Densher's pretense at indifference leads to the dissolution
of their relationship. Maggie. however. tries to break the
mold of the ”ice pudding” by changing the quality of her
relationship with the other three. She does not succeed
until the contents of the pudding -- that is. their mutual
relationships -- have changed and grown sufficiently to break
the mold. At that crucial point. Charlotte and Adam depart
for America because there is no longer room enough in
Maggie's relationship with her husband to accommodate the
other two. Joseph Firebaugh. as already noted. deplores

Maggie's dissimulation. Yet the Prince and Charlotte are

88
certainly more vulnerable to attack than Maggie. whose
dissimulation is simply an attempt to preserve the
"mould” until the "pudding" has hardened into its new
shape. Similarly. Sallie Sears fails to mention Amerigo's
and Charlotte's own duplicity while claiming that James's

true sympathy lies with Charlotte.

The Bath pr Behevolence

Maggie's new plan of involvement is a success. but is
only the first step out of a stultifying situation. The
second step occurs when she realizes that her success is
due entirely to Charlotte's and Amerigo's efforts. She be-
gins to question "why such promptitude of harmony should
be important.” and all but guesses the nature of their
pact as she sees that ”it was not from her that they took
their cue but . . . from each other" (11:41). She senses
that they have immersed her in a ”bath of benevolence"
”before they should. without knowing it. wound her” (11:43),
and feels that ”she must be kept in position so as not to
glearrange them" (11:45). From this point on. her quest
is to discover why Charlotte and Amerigo together possess
the power to wound her. She deserts her bath of benevolence
for the more arduous activity of pulling the family coach.
and broadens her experience of life not only by engaging
in apparently trivial social expeditions. but by investi-
gating the hitherto unknown quantity of evil in the family's

mutual relationships.

89

Maggie learns quite unexpectedly about Charlotte's and
Amerigo's liason from the Bloomsbury shopkeeper. who has
sold her the same golden bowl which Charlotte had wished to
purchase for the Prince. Symbolically. when the bowl is
broken. Maggie can carry only two pieces at a time:
"she paid. with humility of attitude. this prompt tribute
to order -- only to find however that she could carry but
two of the fragments at once" (11:182). Either James wishes
to indicate that she can handle only the two relationships
with her father and Amerigo to the exclusion of Charlotte.
or to imply that the two pieces stand for Maggie and the
Prince. Alan Rose's suggestion that Charlotte and the bowl
are synonymous because Charlotte. who is compared to a silk
purse. is filled with gold. and both she and the bowl are
flowerlike. seems untenable.72 During her discussion with
the Prince. the knowledge of a fresh relationship with her
husband is born to Maggie.

. . he had used her. he had even ex-

ceedingly enjoyed her. before this: but there

had been no precedent for that character of a

proved necessity to him which she was rapidly

taking on. (11:186)
His ”new need” for Maggie results from her growth of know-
ledge about responsibility and evil: only ehe can "by an
instinct all her own . . . securely guide him out" of the
labyrinth of their disoriented relationships. ”Look at the
possibility." she appeals mutely. ”that since I eh different
there may still be something in it for you -- if you're

capable of working with me to get that out" (11:188). The

90
Prince must give up something if he wishes to benefit from
Maggie's increased perceptiveness: he must consider ”what
price[h§1may have to pay. whom [he] may have to pay with to
get this advantage free.” The Prince is at last face to
face with the test he initially feared. and discovers that
Charlotte. whom he has praised as a fine ”silk purse” full
of gold. is the measure of his payment.

Once Maggie reveals her knowledge to the Prince. the
form which the couples had initially adopted is altered
irrevocably. Charlotte loses her power to guide Amerigo:
he accepts his wife's injunction to ”find out” for himself
who else is aware of her new knowledge. and deliberately
neglects to disclose Maggie's discoveries to Charlotte.
The Prince and the Princess together maintain the equili-
brium of the group: it is Charlotte's turn to be walled
into a ”bath of benevolence.” With the Prince's new need
of her as a moral guide. Maggie finds that ”the immense
advantage . . . was that she should have now to arrange.
to alter. to falsify nothing: should have to be but con-
sistently simple and straight” (11:186). The character
of her dissimulation thus changes subtly: she no longer
needs to bide her time until her knowledge comes to fruition
but is able to adopt a freedom of action "for some prodi-
gious and superior adventure” which is "divorced from con-
viction.” In revealing her knowledge to the Prince. she
acts on conviction: but in her desire to "spare him”

which had even ”brushed her. in the depth of her trouble.

 

 

 

91
as with the wild wing of some bird of the air" (11:185).
she acts on freedom. Conviction is thus made subsidiary to
love. as it was for Milly when love overcame revenge at her
deception.

What becomes of Maggie's ”straightness" when she later
lies to Charlotte. upon her honor. ”I've her felt at any
time that you've wronged me" (11:249)? Marius Bewley feels
that a serious reversal of values takes place when Maggie's
marriage becomes sanctified by her lies to Charlotte.73
Maggie. however. escapes the onus of the lie because of her
care for Charlotte's dignity. Maggie simply supports the
appearance which Charlotte has set up. and that appearance
crumples from the weight of Maggie's knowledge. Safe in her
possession of the Prince. Maggie no longer needs to ”arrange.”
but can be “simple” and straightforward in an act of charity.
Her lie to Charlotte is part of her ”prodigious adventure”:
had she acted purely on conviction. she would have denounced
the Prince's former companion. With a sense for the dignity
of all of them. Maggie. like the ”scapegoat of old." charges
herself with "the whole complexity of their peril.” She
refuses to surrender Charlotte to public disgrace. although
Charlotte is the one responsible for her experience of
finding ”the horror of the thing hideously behind. behind so
much trusted. so much pretended. nobleness. cleverness. ten-
derness” (11:237). Perhaps it is true. as Ferner Nuhn main-
tains. that for Maggie to expose Charlotte would mean that
the Ververs' ”high faith in culture as liberation" is a

74

delusion. It seems evident. however. that Maggie spares

92

Charlotte not to preserve an illusive belief which she has
recognized as false. but to preserve the personal integrity
of all of them: it also seems clear that her "high faith"
in Amerigo's culture is in the end vindicated. In trying
not to ”give them up.” give up Charlotte and Amerigo and her
father. she avoids. ”by a hair's breadth. deflecting into
the truth” (11:250). While one effect of the ”extraor-
dinary form of her humbugging" is to spare Charlotte. the
other is to punish her more certainly than an outright

accusation would have done. Maggie is able to spare her

 

because she knows that she and the Prince are working to-
gether. while Charlotte “was really off in some darkness
of space that would steep her in solitude and harrass her
with care" (11:250).

Despite the intensity of Charlotte's punishment. there
is a great deal of pity directing Maggie's actions. Joseph
Firebaugh points out that Maggie's ”certain compassion” for
Charlotte is that of a ”righteous deity.” not that of a

”fellow mortal."7S

He is correct. but not in the deroga-
tory sense he intends: humbugging to the end. Maggie allows
Charlotte to retain her last and most important possession --
her pride. Maggie's final "supreme abjection” on the eve

of the Ververs' removal to America gives Charlotte the
opportunity to express seemingly righteous anger about
Maggie's intimacy with her father as well as to blame Maggie's

interference as the reason for the Ververs' move. ”To be

doomed was in Charlotte's situation to have extravagantly

93

incurred a doom. so that to confess to wretchedness was by
the same stroke to confess to falsity” (11:312). Charlotte
-- doomed to a sterile life in American City -- is in reality
being transported away from the Prince by Adam Verver. and
the ”quaver” in her clever voice. as she explains her hus-
band's antiques to a crowd of gaping visitors. sounds to
Maggie like ”the shriek of a soul in pain.” The passage.
although long. is of interest:

The largest of the three pieces has the rare

peculiarity that the garlands. looped around it a

. . . are not of the same origin or period.

or even. wonderful as they are. of a taste quite I

so perfect. They have been put on at a later time -

. . so that although the whole thing is a

little baroque its value as a specimen is I be-
lieve almost inestimable. (11:291)

.. 1...".‘3‘7‘. __._r .w.. “1‘“

If we understand the ”three pieces” as a metaphor for the
three living art pieces -- Maggie. Charlotte. and Amerigo
-- which Mr. Verver has collected. Charlotte seems to be
describing herself (Alan Rose's suggestion that ”three
pieces” refers to the golden bowl itself seems less

76). The ”long. silken halter looped around

supportable
her beautiful neck” has. like the garlands. been ”put on

at a later time" by Mr. Verver.

Maggie. for all of her humbugging. finally achieves

her rightful position as a guide for the Prince. At the end.
he "sees” only her to the exclusion of Charlotte and even
Fanny. By emerging out of a cycle of childish dependence

on her father into the knowledge that she is able to control

her own life. Maggie grows to greater stature than Charlotte.

with all her splendid style. has been able to achieve.

94
Maggie has become ”deep”: she has become a person of en-
during interest to the Prince rather than a toy for enjoy-
ment. She has learned that involvement with another human
being means more than a knowledge of his history: it re-
quires harmony with the "personal quantity." Most of all.
she has managed to preserve the personal dignity of three
other people. and. in taking this responsibility upon her-

self. has avoided the trap of imperceptiveness.

CHAPTER IV. SUMMARY

The major James . . . the hater of tyranny:

. . . book after early book against oppression.
against all the sordid petty personal crushing
oppression. the domination of modern life . .

The outburst for human liberty. personal liberty.
the rights of the indigidual. against all sorts

of impersonal bondage.

The Henry James who attended elite dinner entertain-
ments to unearth ideas for his social comedies was indeed the
"hater of tyranny” and the denigrator of the ”domination of
modern life." His pity for the individual caught in "im-
personal bondage" and his belief in the human capacity for
winged victory are displayed. not by socially conscious
diatribes. but by subtle. understated novels revealing his
intense humanitarianism. Certainly Kate Croy and Charlotte
Stant. his best expressions of man's inhumanity. are treated
with a masterly sympathy which imbues their actions with a
fine touch of the pathetic. The two ”splendid” creatures
affront a world in which personal resourcefulness is the only
defense against a monotonous life where taste. love and
beauty are reduced to the primitive urgencies of food and
shelter. Kate's and Charlotte's distaste for the common-
place. however. prompts them to subordinate the finer things
of life to an undignified scramble for wealth. which. when

achieved. does not lead to the heights of taste. love. and
95

96
beauty. but to their belittlement and eventual sacrifice.
Milly and Maggie. James's representatives of humanity. are
saved from the corruptive economic struggle by virtue of
their great financial resources. yet. in the beginning.
are as far from the fine life as Kate and Charlotte. James
has updated and made credible the myth of the happy but
impoverished retainer who cannot be swayed by money. by
endowing Milly and Maggie with so much wealth that it
ceases to become a motive for their actions. He implies that
neither the lack nor the presence of money affects the
growth of perceptiveness. only how it is used: Densher. who
is very poor. achieves a spiritual understanding akin to
Milly's. who is very rich: the Prince. who possesses only
a title. learns more in a few years than the immeasurably
wealthy Adam Verver has learned in a lifetime.

Both The Wings pr rhe Dove and The Gplden Bowl are

 

primarily concerned with character development: yet it is
not significant merely to show that one set of characters
develops while another set does not. for that is the formula
upon which most novels and stories are constructed. James's
special technique is to dramatize character development by
juxtaposing two conflicting patterns which. in the preceding
chapters. have been labeled 'circular' and 'spiral.' The
labels are more than convenient ways to distinguish the
antagonist from the protagonist. or the subordinate charac-
ter from the hero or heroine: they are descriptive names

for the types of ”movement-of-spirit" the characters undergo.

97
If author's empathy were enough to define a heroine. then
Kate and Charlotte would qualify. as some critics feel78:
for James. however. an ever-widening spiral of development
into a consciousness of the pricelessness of humanity and
the nature of man's capabilities is the hallmark of a
heroine. This development only takes place in characters
who find that using a human being as a tool for gaining a
selfish goal is unsatisfactory and limiting. Maggie. who
at first innocently uses Charlotte to satisfy her concern
for Adam's loneliness and to provide companionship for the
Prince during social occasions. discovers at last how narrow
her field of action and her outlook have become. With
responsibility comes freedom: hence when Maggie finally
accepts the responsibilities entailed by her marriage to
the Prince. she can cease to depend on Charlotte and begin
to partake of the joy of a fully-experienced relationship.
Milly. in the beginning. sins not by usage but by accepting
the society which condones the barter of human affections
as the fullness of 'life.' After her visit to Sir Luke
Strett. she realizes that she cannot even use pity for her
illness to mitigate it: she must face her mortality alone.
In contrast. Kate uses Milly's love for Densher to gain a
fortune: Charlotte uses Maggie's affectionate attachment
for her father not only to secure a wealthy marriage. but
to indulge in her love for the Prince. Both Kate and
Charlotte violate their humanity by subjecting individual

liberty to the constraint of a false appearance assumed to

98
gain a selfish benefit. Love is sacrificed to form:
neither can grow more perceptive because the free play of
imagination and the expression of emotion have been deli-
berately sacrificed to the maintenance of a static attitude.
Densher is equally culpable in allowing himself to be used:
he subjugates his will completely to Kate's. even though
he senses that her scheme to entangle Milly is wrong. Like
the Prince. it is not until the end of the novel that he
changes his allegiance from a limiting. circular force to
a growing. spiral one.

James is perhaps best known for his juxtaposition of
innocence and experience. These two facets of the human
condition are. however. but a key to his vaster concern for
'good' and 'evil.' which are presented in his later works
as free and limited modes of action. In fact. experience
per ee seems to provide only a false clue to what is good.
as both Kate and Charlotte illustrate. Milly and Maggie
also discover that eXperience reveals only the bad. the
thing hideously behind what is trusted. Innocence. on the
other hand. can be as limiting as experience: before Maggie
comes to grasp Charlotte's motives. she is as ”dead. dead.
dead” to the real nature of love as the Bronzino portrait.
With his distrust of both innocence ehg eXperience as it is
commonly understood. James seems to imply that the only
viable mode of life is a special type of experience which
yields neither a concentration on selfish ends nor a desire

to mitigate one's suffering by using another person. His

99

interest in this special type of experience results in an
emphasis on the renunciation of revenge. a theme which makes
its debut as early as The Ame ican. where Newman discovers
that revenge on the Bellegardes is not adequate compen-
sation for his lost fiancee. Milly learns. too. that revenge
on Densher for his part in Kate's scheme would be fruitless
and quite out of keeping with the love she bears him. For
her part. Maggie knows that she is not to have the relief
of a jealous outburst: she intuits the braver thing. the
better propriety. to be the preservation of Charlotte's
self-image through her own forgiveness. She. the victor.
can afford to be generous. just as Milly. who succeeds in
attaining Densher's love. can be open-handed. The result
of a renunciation of revenge is an ambiguous situation in
which the heroes -- Newman. Isabel. Milly. Maggie -- seem
to submit to the will of the villains -- the Bellegardes.
Osmond. Kate. Charlotte. In reality. the opposite is true:
the villains win the tangible benefits. but the heroes are
ennobled by greater perceptiveness.

The developmental pattern which each character creates
is also a key to the structure of the novel. The effect
is perhaps clearest in The Gplden hprl_where the two halves
of the novel are structured by Maggie's and the Prince's
active consciousnesses. but even Isabel Archer's travels
through Europe and eventual return to Osmond are analogues
for her initial misunderstanding of freedom and her final

growth of perceptiveness. In The ELEBQMQE rhe Dpye. unlike

100

The Golden heel. three consciousnesses are presented in an
overlapping fashion. Whereas Charlotte is given identity
sheerly by Maggie's and Amerigo's reactions to her. Kate
receives a more direct treatment. even though her ”move-
ment-of—spirit” which has been defined as immobile in the
first part of the book is totally neglected in the second
half. Both Kate and Charlotte share the honor of devising
the plots for their respective novels: when the rest of
the characters react to their plots. dramatic tension
arises. This is not the case in The Ambassadors. where
Strether reacts to the mores of an entire society. rather
than to a malignant form of social error in a trusted
associate: dramatic tension exists. but the confrontation
is between individual and society rather than individual and
individual.

There has been no lack of discussion about James's
analysis of innocence and experience. or perceptiveness
and limitation. but there has also been no explanation of
how these themes are relevant to his techniques of form and
development. The preceding paper has attempted to provide
a coherent examination of character development in The
ELDE§.2£ £22.2222 and The Golden heel. the two novels which
represent the fruition of James's craft. in an effort to
lay the groundwork for further study of the effect of de-
velopment and theme on structure. A future line of inves-
tigation could include a detailed examination of the early

novels as prototypes containing ”circular" and ”spiral”

101
character patterns. In addition. a study of the growth of
James's conception of 'good' and ’evil' into patterns of
development is needed. At the same time. a further applica-
tion of Fergusson's universal definition of action as *move-
ment-of-spirit’ would be helpful in determining the freedom
of the characters in question.

Like Celia and Lavinia in Eliot's "The Coctail Party.”
each one of James's characters must choose to create a
pattern of existence. Milly and Celia choose a path of
sacrifice and spiritual influence. Maggie. like Lavinia.
is of this world; she chooses to confront her situation
and win a victory on her own terms without sacrificing any
part of her marriage or her life. Kate and Charlotte
choose to be successful on society's terms. and almost
succeed in shackling Densher and the Prince to their wills.
In the end. Densher and the Prince. whose greatest sins
are he; choosing a way of life. remain under a form of
guidance; each shifts his allegiance to a life-giving pat-
tern which he was unable to perceive alone. The ideal
epitaph for both of them might be taken from Eliot's
”Little Gidding”:

We shall not cease from exploration

And the end of all our eXploring

Will be to arrive where we started
And to know the place for the first time.

FOOTNOTES

1 The Image eT_Europe Th_Henry James (Dallas. 1958).
pp. 28-29.

2 Graham Greene. "Henry James: The Private Universe.”

in The Lost Chil hood and Othe; Essa s. by Graham Greene
(London. 19515. p. 30.

3
4
5

6 Edmund Wilson. ”'The Pilgrimage of Henry James.'" in
The Shores 9; Li ht. by Edmund Wilson (New York. 1952).

p. 222.
See. for examples Dorothea Krook. The Ordeal of Con-
C.

The American (New York. 1922). p. 219.
Ibid.. p. xviii.
The Portrait 9; e Lady (New York. 1922). pt. 11. 197.

7
sciousness Th Hengx James (Cambridge. 19625: Frederick
Crews. The Tgagedy e; Mannege (New Haven. 1957); and

Sallie Sears. The Negative Ima ination: Fogh and Pergeee-
give Th_the Novels 9; Benny James New York. 1968).

8 ”Introduction” to Aria 0 le' ”Poetics.” trans.
S. H. Butcher (New York. 19635. p. 8.

9 Ibid.. p. 40.

1° Lgig.. p. 13.

11 James. The PegggeT; e; e Lady. pt. I. xviii. (Future
page references will be cited in the body of the text.)

12 The flgteheghe, f hehzy James. ed. F. O. Matthiessen
and Kenneth B. Murdock New York. 1961). p. 220.

13 Ibid.. p. 188.

14 The Leseon e; the Ma e . The Death f the TTeh.
The Nex; Time and Other Talee (New York. 1922 . XV. xv.

15 ”Henry James's 'The Figure in the Carpet': What
is Critical ResponsivenessY.”‘§y§B. V (1961). 128.

 

102

103

16 ”A Reading of 'The Figure in the Carpet.'" AL.
xxx111 (1962). 464-

17 ”A Reperusal of James's 'The Figure in the Carpet.'”
‘QL. XXXIII (1961). 226.

18 Parker Tyler.)"The Child as 'The Figure in the Car-
pet.'" ChTR. II 1958 . 40.

19 Mark Kanzer. ”'The Figure in the Carpet.'” 5T. XVII
(1960), 340.

20
21
22

The Lesson er the Master . . . . p. 233.
Notebooks. p. 188.

The Lesson e§,rhe'Masrer . . . . p. 233.

23 ”'The Figure in the Carpet.'" in The ghestion of

Henry James. by Joseph Warren Beach (Philadelphia. 1954 .
p. 1 40

24

25 Notebooks. p. 18.

26 "Portrait e; e Lady: Vis Inertiae." WEE. XIII
(1959). 189.

27 ”From Ag Inrroguetion re_rhe Ehglish Novel.” in
Perspectives eh_James'§ ”P rtrait erHe Lad .” ed. William

T. Stafford (New York, 196 . p. 109.

Weglin. p. 29.

9:8 The Ameriggn Henry James (New Brunswick. N.J.. 1957).
p. 1 o
4729 The Imaginarion er Disaster (Lincoln. Neb.. 1961).
p. .
3° Krook. p. 362.
31

The Englieh Novel: Terr and FunctTon (New York.
1953). p. 2150

32 Manfred MacKenzie. ”Ironic Melodrama in The Portrai;
e§_e La y.” MF§. XII (1966). 22.

33 F. 0. Matthiessen. Henry James: The Majer Phage
(New York. 1963). p. 45.

. 34 For a discussion of the ends-means confusion in
Jamesian society. see: Tony Tanner. ”The Fearful Self: The

Portrair gr“; Lad .” in Henry Jameex Modern Judgemenrs.
ed. Tony Tanner (London. 1968). pp. 144-145.

104

35 lbs. flags 2:. £1.12 9.9.3.12 (New York. 1922). pt. I. 277.
(Future page references will be cited in the body of the text.)

36 Ernest Sandeen. ”The Wings QT the Dove and The Por-

trair 9T,e Lad s A Study of Henry James's Later Phase.”
PMLA. LXIX 1964). 1067.

37
38
39
40

41 R. P. Blackmur. ”The Loose and Baggy Monsters of
Henry James.” in The Lion and the Honeycomb. by R. P.
Blackmur (New York. 1955). p. 277.

42
43

44 Quentin Kraft. ”Life Against Death in Venice.”
C iticism. VII (1965). 220.

45
46
47

48 J. A. Ward. The Seareh for Form (North Carolina.
1967). pp. 178-183.

49
50

The Imaginarion gL_Disaster. p. 136.
Krook. p. 196.

Weglin. p. 119.
Matthiessen. p. 69.

Ward. Imaginarion er Disaster. p. 105.
Krook. p. 214.

Ibid.. p. 222.
Matthiessen. p. 67.
Ibido ' p. 580

Wilson. p. 223.

Ward. Search for Ferm. p. 179.

23:1 Henry James: The Untried Yeare (New York. 1953).
p. o
52

Leo Bersani. “The Narrator as Center in The Wings
2: the Doye.” MFS. VI (1960). 137.

53 The.De c ve Element: 5 Srugy e§_Moderh Writers
and Beliefs Philadelphia. 19 3). p. 41.

54
55
56

Matthiessen. p. 75.
Crews. p. 74.

MaIO: Phase. p. 770

105
57
58

59 For an analysis of Fanny as the "Greek chorus who
interprets the real meaning of experience" to the reader
and to the characters. see: Adeline Tintner. ”The Spoils
of Henry James.” PMLA. LXI (1946). 239-251.

60 Ruth Taylor Todasco. ”Theme and Imagry in The Gol-
den Bowl.” TSLL. IV (1962). 237.
61

62 "Henry James's Last Portrait of a Lady: Charlotte
Stant in The Golden gowT." eh, XXVIII (1957). 462.

63

Bersani. p. 137.

Matthiessen. p. 77.

 

Crews. p. 1000

Weglin. p. 131.

64 ”Maggie Verver: Neither Saint Nor Witch." Egg.
XII (1957). 67.

65 ”The Ververs.” ELQ. IV (1954)! 406'
66

67
68
69
70

71 Naomi Lebowitz. ”Ma ic and Metamorphosis in The
Gelden Bowl.” e3. LXXIII (1 65). 72-73.

72 ”The Spatial Form of The Gelden Bowl.” MFS. XII
(1966). 106.

73
74
75
76

77 Ezra Pound. ”Henry James.” in The Literary Essays 2£
Ezra Pound. by Ezra Pound (London. 1954). p. 296.

78

The Negative Ima ination. p. 201.
ThTe.. p. 186.
Thid.. p. 206.
Wright. p. 67.

Sears. p. 203.

The Cemplex Eere (London. 1952). p. 95.
The,fl1hg,§Tey_Erem,§he,§eer (New York. 1942). p. 120.
Firebaugh. p. 407.

Rose. p. 108.

See: Sears. p. 186: and Kimball. p. 449.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jaw

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson. Quentin. The American Henry James. New Brunswick.
N. J.. 1957.

Beach. Joseph Warren. The Method er Henry James. Phila-
delphia. 1954.

Jam” 1 but?!

Bersani. Leo. ”The Narrator as Center in The Wings er rhe 1
Deve." MFS. VI. No. 1 (1960). 131-144.

 

BeWIGY. Marius. The Complex Fate: Hawthorne. Henry James 5
arm §9111e 91:29.; W Writer..- London. 1952. g:

Blackmur. R. P. "The Loose and Baggy Monsters of Henry
James." The Lion and the Honeycomb. New York. 1955.

Crews. Frederick C. The Tragedy er Manners. New Haven. 1957.

Edel. Leon. The Untried Years. 1843-1870. Philadelphia.
1953.

Fergusson. Francis. ”Introduction." Aristotle's "Peerics.”
Trans. S. H. Butcher. New York. 1963.

Firebag hé goseph. "The Ververs.” EIC. IV. No. 1 (1954).
4 - 1 .

Greene. Graham. ”Henry James: The Private Universe." The
Los; Chrldhood and Other Essays. London. 1951.

James. Henry. The Notebooks er Henry James. Ed. F. 0.
Matthiessen and Kenneth B. Murdock. New York. 1961.

. The Novels and Tales er Henry James.
26 vols. New York. 1922.

 

 

Kanzer. Mark. ”'The Figure in the Carpet.'” AT. XVII.
No. 4 (1960). 339-348.

Kettle. Arnold. ”From hh_1nrreduction he the Englieh

NoveT.” Pereeeeriyee eh James's ”Perrrair Qiflé Lady."
Ed. William T. Stafford. New York. 196 .

106

107

Kimball. Jean. ”Henry James's Last Portrait of a Lady:
Charlotte Stant in The Golden Bowl." Ah. XXVIII.
NO. 4. (1957). 449-468.

Kraft. Quentin. ”Life Against Death in Venice.” Criticism.
VII (1965). 217-223.

Krook. Dorothea. The Ordeal er Consciousness T__Henry
James. Cambridge. 1962.

 

Lainoff. Seymour. ”Henry James's 'The Figure in the Car-
pet': What is Critical Responsiveness?“ BUSE. V.
No. 2 (1961), 122-128.

Lebowitz. Naomi. ”Magic and Metamor hosis in The Golden
BOWlo" g. LXXIII. N00 1 (1965 g 58.73.

Levy. Leo B. "A Readin of 'The Figure in the Carpet.'"

Mackenzie. Manfred. ”Ironic Melodrama in The Portrait 9;
e Lady." MFS. XII (1966). 7-23.

Matthiessen. F. 0. The Major Phase. New York. 1963.
Nuhn. Ferner. The Wind Blew From the East. New York. 1942.

Pound. Ezra. ”Henry James.” The Literary Essays er Ezra
Peun . London. 1954.

Powers. Lyall. "A Reperusal of James's 'The Figure in the
Carpet.'" AL. XXXIII. No. 2 (1961). 224-228.

Rose. Alan. "The Spatial Form of The Gelden Bowl." MFS,
x11, No. 1 (1966). 103-116.

Sandeen. Ernest. ”The Wings 9; the Deye and The Perrrair
er e Lady: A Study of Henry James's Later Phase.”
PMLA. LXIX. No. S (1954). 1060-1070.

 

Sears. Sallie. The Negarive Ima ina on: Form end Per-
sheetive Th the Novels er Henry James. New York. 1968.

Spender. Stephen. The Destrhctive Element: 5 Study hf
Moderh Wrirers and Beliefs. Philadelphia. 1 .
Stein. William Bysshe. ”Portrait 2£.§ Lady: Vis Inertiae.”

Tanner. Tony. ”The Fearful Self: The Portrait 2£.§ Lady."

Hehry James: Moderh Judgements. Ed. Tony Tanner.
London. 1968.

108

Tintner. Adeline. "The Spoils of Henry James." ghLA.
LXI (1946). 239-251.

Todasco. Ruth Taylor. ”Theme and Imagry in The Golden Bew .”

Tyler. Parker. "The Child as 'The Figure in the Carpet.'”
ChiR' II. NO. 4 (1958). 31-420

Van Ghent. Dorothy. The English Nove : Form and Funcrieh.
New York. 1953.

Ward. 3. A. The Imaginargen efi_D1easter. Lincoln. Neb..
l 61.

. The Seareh Ter Term. North Carelina. 1967.

 

Weglin. Christoff. The Image 2£.§E£22§.lfl.flenEY James.
Dallas . 1958 0

Wilson. Edmund. ”'The Pilgrimage of Henry James.'” The
Sheres 2£.Ll£h£- New York. 1952.

Wright. Walter. " g ie Verver: Neither Saint Nor Witch."
NCF’ XII, NO. 1 €1957). 59-710

 

General References

Brooks. Van Wyck. The Pilgrimage er Henry James. New York.
1925.

Cargill. Oscar. ”The First International Novel.” PMLA.
LXIII. No. 4 (1958). 418- 425.

Dupee. Frederick W. The ghestioh 2; Henry James. New York.

Edel. Leon. The Tendon Tears. 1870-1882. Philadelphia. 1962.
. The Middle Yea . 1882-1895. Philadelphia. 1962.

The TreaehereheY . 1895-1901. Phila-
delphia. 1969.

 

 

James. Henry. The Midgle Years. London. 1917.
. Notes of a Son and Brother. London. 1914.

 

. A Small Bey and Orhers. New York. 1963.
Leavis. F. R. The Grear Tragirion. New York. 1963.

 

Matthiessen. F. O. The Jemes Family. New York. 1947.

Muecke. 3. C. ”The Dove's Flight.” N&Q. IX. No. 1 (1954).
6" 8.

West. Rebecca. Henry Jemee. New York. 1965.

109

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

”MOVEMENT-OF-SPIRIT" IN FIVE OF JAMES'S NOVELS

Francis Fergusson's definition of action as "the moti-
vation from which deeds spring." which he describes meta-
phorically as "the focus or movement of the psyche toward
what seems good to it at the moment -- a 'movement-of-
spirit.'” can be applied to James's novels to determine the
type of pattern each character creates. The protagonists.
who wish to discover something. are in the constant state
of development which has been described in the Introduction
as spiral. A threefold “movement-of-spirit" can be identi-
fied for each. The antagonists. on the other hand. wish
to preserve a state of affairs: their actions are limited
and circular. In contrast to the heroes and heroines. the
antagonists or villains maintain a single intention through-
out each novel.

The description of action for each character on the
following pages is based on Fergusson's formulation for the
characters in the play ”Oedipus." where the protagonist's
three "movements-of-spirit" are ”to discover how to cure
Thebes of the plague.” ”to find the slayer of Laius." and

”to accept the truth.”

110

 

RODERICK HUDSON

Roderick Hudson:

Christina Light:

THE AMERICAN

Christopher Newman:

The Bellegardes:

Isabel Archer:

Gilbert Osmond:

To
To

To

To

To

To

To
To

To

To

To

To

111

'cure' ineXperience in art and life.
discover what 'killed' his artistic
ability.

accept the truth that he lacks the
genius to become a great artist.

gain a husband at any cost.

'cure' loneliness by marrying.
discover why his proposal is rejec-
ted and who has slain the father.
accept the loss of Claire.

maintain their aristocratic pre-

tensions.

'cure' innocence without suffering
from experience.

discover what 'killed' her freedom
and how to cope with Osmond's
narrow way of life.

accept the truth that she is re-
sponsible for her actions.
maintain his aristocratic pre-

tensions.

AWKWARD AGE

Nanda Brookenham:

Mrs. Brook:

THE AMBASSADOR§

Lambert Strether:

Mrs. Newsome and

the Pococks:

To
To

To

To

To
To

To

To

112

'cure' herself of over-experience.
discover who is to blame for her
social disorientation.

accept the truth that she is
spoiled for Vanderbank.

preserve the status of her social

circle by excluding Nanda.

'cure' Chad by bringing him home.
discover who has 'killed' the
'old' Chad.

accept the truth that the 'old'
Chad is still alive but that the

'old' Strether is dead.

convince Strether that Chad's

attachment is not virtuous.

”mum

l

"I
III"
“I
“
III"

N)!
“I

E")

M"
H
“

NI

A“

W"

H"

4
6
9
1
3
0
3
9
2
4|
3