Arthur Machen: Man Is Made a Mystery 2: Ornaments in Jade, Hill of Dreams, White People

Extollager

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
9,271
Chapter 3 of Geoffrey Reiter's dissertation

https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/baylor-ir...eoffrey_Reiter_phd.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

deals with these works and Hieroglyphics, a critical study cast in the form of a narrative.

In this phase of Machen's creativity, roughly the later 1890s, Machen was dealing with Decadent themes; he was intrigued by eroticism and ecstasy, the sufferings of the artist because of Philistine social attitudes and his own shortcomings, etc. I won't have a lot to say about this chapter, unless in connection with "The White People"; it's many years since I read Hieroglyphics, and I've read and reread The Hill of Dreams and the brief pieces that make up Ornaments in Jade largely because they are by Machen rather than because I am greatly drawn to them on their own merits.

But I know that some Chrons people are admirers of The Hill of Dreams. Does Dr. Reiter's discussion of it enhance your enjoyment and understanding of it?

Here's a little that I did write a few years ago, fwiw, on The Hill of Dreams:

Tolkien's Prose and Machen's

Discussion of Reiter's first two chapters begins here:

Arthur Machen: Man Is Made a Mystery 1: Great God Pan, White Powder, Inmost Light, Black Seal
 
Reiter's third chapter has a few pages on "The White People." People interested in this thread, and who have read Machen's story, may like to interact with Reiter's discussion, here. I'll do so a little, but should say up front that though I've read the story numerous times, I haven't reread "The White People" this year and don't have the text of this story at hand.

For convenience I will refer to the girl who writes the main narrative as the Diarist, but her narrative isn't written as a sequence of diary entries.

Reiter seems more uncertain about what happens in the story than he needs to be. In the Cotgrave-Meyrick dialogue, we overhear an allusion to a paranormal incident in which a sash window came down on someone's fingers; the person who saw this accident took on (as it were) "stigmata," as if she herself had been the victim of the painful incident. The young Diarist, who has been initiated into a secret witch cult, sees a ritual copulation in a remote setting, and herself becomes pregnant, but commits suicide before whatever it is that would be born can be born.* The incident of the window and of the "marriage" are beheld by observers who undergo a "miracle" of "sympathy." It seems clear that the Diarist's previous explorations and experiences have prepared her for the "miracle."

The presence of "miracle," then, or supernatural "sign," is, in the story, the indication of whether someone has attained to "ecstasy," the withdrawal from common modes of experience into awareness of and participation in a transcendent realm. The story is dualistic. There is a realm of transcendent evil that, Meyrick indicates, has little to do with common criminality, as there is a realm of transcendent good that has little to do with ordinary niceness.

Machen may have thought that the existence of a realm of transcendent goodness could be hinted at by the evocation of its opposite: if transcendent evil can be alluring, so too the possibility of transcendent goodness, which we can hardly imagine, may stir the imagination -- where commonplace exhortations to being kind often won't.

It would be interesting to consider the theme of "transference" in this story with that in Kipling's "The Wish-House" and in the thought of Charles Williams. In the Kipling story, a couple of working-class women discuss how one might become able to bear the suffering of a loved other. Williams worked with the idea of a supernatural bearing of others' burdens not only in his fiction (Descent into Hell, which in its way, like "The White People," is a story of initiation into transcendent evil as well as of the discovery of supernatural good) but in letters. Transcendent evil would parody the good supernatural possibility, rendering horror instead of healing.

On page 115, I don't think Reiter should describe Meyrick as a "philosophical lunatic." On the next page, it would be better not to make the remark about the "white people" being "akin" to the troglodytic "little people" of "The Black Seal" unless one is going to explain how this is so; they seem radically different to me. On page 117, I question the statement that "'The White People' frames its philosophy in explicitly Christian language." Surely one must be more definite than merely using "'sorcery and sanctity'" to warrant this characterization. Reiter's comment about the Diarist as a victim of evil captures something important about the story.

"The White People" certainly has moved beyond the fantasy of evolutionary atavism or survival that was important in several earlier stories.

*Machen might have been influenced in his development of this idea by the notion that if a pregnant woman sees something she shouldn't, that might affect the development of her unborn baby--e.g. if she sees a hare, the child might be born with a cleft palate. But the Diarist wasn't pregnant till she saw the "marriage."
 
Last edited:
On page 117, I question the statement that "'The White People' frames its philosophy in explicitly Christian language." Surely one must be more definite than merely using "'sorcery and sanctity'" to warrant this characterization.

As I said, I don't have the story at hand. But now I think of it, it does seem to me that Meyrick refers to the saint as striving along lines that are natural to us from before the Fall; unlike the "sinner" in his sense, whose effort is on wholly other lines. Reiter's treatment of "The White People" could be expanded so that he could make his case more clearly and thoroughly. I do think his main thesis, that Machen's thought did change, did develop, is good, and that he is building an argument for that, which is deserving of consideration by anyone who has a real interest in Machen.... though there don't seem to be very many such here at Chrons!

By the way -- maybe I've mentioned this before here at Chrons; but I wonder if it would be profitable to compare and contrast "The White People" and Tolkien's Smith of Wootton Major. You could argue that both are Faerie stories. There's just a hint in Tolkien's story of some kind of dark presences in Faerie. Both stories concern human beings who are explore a realm unsuspected by most. But the best that can be said for Machen's story's realm is that it isn't a good place for human beings.
 
Meyrick’s opinions about saints and sinners at the beginning of “The White People” were to be echoed, unknowingly I suppose, by Stuart Holroyd in Emergence from Chaos (1957), a study of Yeats, T. S. Eliot, and other poets.

Holroyd, like Machen, flatly dismisses Judeo-Christian ethics, in which God requires justice and compassion and assures people of His great concern for how human beings live together. Holroyd sounds like Meyrick when he can’t accept that “the man who kills in a moment of anger, the woman who deserts her husband for another man, the liar, the pickpocket, are all sinners. This is the popular opinion, but I would like to diverge from it” and use “sin” to mean “the deliberate doing of evil, the conscious siding with the powers of darkness.” Holroyd and Meyrick see the former acts as merely a “social problem” which may be accounted for by criminals’ “environment, their education or the circumstances of their lives.” In a “religious” sense, Holroyd says, these offenders are “innocent as babes.” In contrast, a “real sinner, in whom evil is indigenous, is as rare as the coelacanth.” Borrowing terminology from Gnosticism, if I’m not mistaken, Holroyd makes a distinction between ordinary “psychical” [or soulish] man, who may commit social offenses or may be a good neighbor, and the “spiritual man,” who may be a true sinner or a saint or mystic (pp. 29-30). This sounds just like Meyrick.

This has me thinking that the bent of Machen’s imagination at this time was “Gnostic,” with the usual antagonism toward Christianity that Gnostics have displayed since they got going. This raises the question of whether Machen had by this time studied Gnosticism. In the sense of serious study of Gnosticism as a phenomenon of various emergent heresies about which the Epistles of St. John warn, and about which St. Irenaeus, a century later, was so thorough an examiner, no, I don’t suppose Machen had; but he’d have discovered Gnostic-type thought in his perusal of occult material. You could probably go a long way in discussion simply by exploring the difference between Christian (disciple, parishioner, saint, etc.) on the one hand and adept on the other. Machen seems to have been attracted to the idea of the adept at this time.

Incidentally, Gnostic or Gnostic-type ideas were appealing to some Romantics. The next time you read Jane Eyre pay close attention to the way schoolgirl Jane’s friend Helen Burns talks.

This thread is intended to be a place to respond to Dr. Reiter’s dissertation on Machen’s changing beliefs. He might want to do research into the things that Machen was reading, so far as they can be discovered. But he will be hampered like everyone else by the fact, as I’ve said, that there just doesn’t seem to be very much available. Machen’s published letters aren’t very enlightening, so far as I have noticed. He doesn’t seem to have kept diaries or journals. He doesn’t seem to be much recorded in the writings of others – mentioned, maybe described briefly, yes, but nothing in much depth. We do not know what books he owned (at various times in his life). He wrote several autobiographies but they don’t really say a lot about his reading: some things, yes, but not enough for well-founded biographical literary criticism, it seems to me. I think that writers about Machen need to be a bit careful on the score of his involvement with an occult group. Yes, he was involved, at least briefly, in some degree, but perhaps there’s a tendency (not a problem for Reiter), given the thinness of the material about Machen’s background, to build too much on this fact.
 
Here's a passage from Hieroglyphics on Dickens's Pickwick Papers. Probably it was this passage that stirred me many years ago to think this was a novel that I must take up. The speaker is a "recluse," but I suppose we may take him to be a vehicle for Machen's own opinions, perhaps stated with fewer qualifications than Machen might have felt he should make in other contexts:

Dickens is by no means in the first rank of literary artists. I think he is golden, but he is very largely alloyed with baser stuff, with indifferent metal, which was the product of his age, of his circumstances in life, of his own uncertain taste. Just contrast the atmosphere which surrounded the young Sophocles, with that in which the young Dickens flourished. Both were men of genius, but one grew up in the City of the Violet Crown, the other in Camden Town and worse places, one was accustomed to breathe that "most pellucid air," the other inhaled the "London particular." The wonder is, not that there are faults in Dickens, but that there is genius of any kind. I am not going to analyze "Pickwick" any more than I analyzed "Vanity Fair," but of course you see that, in its conception, it is essentially one with the "Odyssey." It is a book of wandering; you start from your own doorstep and you stray into the unknown; every turn of the road fills you with surmise, every little village is a discovery, a something new, a creation. You know not what may happen next; you are journeying through another world. I need not remind you how glorious all this is in the Odyssey, which of course is so much more beautiful than "Pickwick," as that glowing Mediterranean Sea, whose bounds on every side were mystery, is more beautiful than the muddy, foggy Thames, as those rolling hexameters are more beautiful than Dickens's prose; and yet in each case the symbol is, in reality, the same; both the heroic song of the old Ionian world and the comic cockney romance of 1837 communicate that enthralling impression of the unknown, which is, at once, a whole philosophy of life, and the most exquisite of emotions. In varying degrees of intensity you will trace it all through fine literature in every age and in every nation; you will find it in Celtic voyages, in the Eastern Tale, where a door in a dull street suddenly opens into dreamland, in the mediæval stories of the wandering knights, in "Don Quixote," and at last in our "Pickwick" where Ulysses has become a retired city man, whimsically journeying up and down the England of sixty years ago. You talk of the "grotesquerie" of "Pickwick," but don't you see that this element is present in all the masterpieces of the kind? Remember the Cyclops, remember the grotesque shapes that decorate the "Arabian Nights," remember the bizarre element, the almost wanton grotesquerie of many of the "Arthur" romances. In all these cases as in "Pickwick" the same result is obtained; an overpowering impression of "strangeness," of remoteness, of withdrawal from the common ways of life. "Pickwick," is, in no sense, or in no valuable sense, a portrayal, a copy, an imitation of life in the ordinary sense of "imitation," and "life"; Pickwick, and Sam, and Jingle, and the rest of them are not clever reproductions of actual people, (is there any more foolish pursuit than that of disputing about the "original" of Mr Pickwick?); the book is rather the suggestion of another life, beneath our own or beside our own, and the characters, those queer grotesque people, are queer for the same reason that the Cyclops is queer and the dwarfs and dragons of mediæval romance are queer. We are withdrawn from the common ways of life; and in that withdrawal is the beginning of ecstasy. There are sentences in "Pickwick" that give me an almost extravagant delight. You remember the lines about the Lotus-Eaters.

τῶν δ' ὅστις λωτοῖο φάγοι μελιηδέα καρπὸν,
οὐκέτ' ἀπαγγεῖλαι πάλιν ἤθελεν οὐδὲ νέεσθαι
ἀλλ' αὐτοῦ βούλοντο μετ' ἀνδράσι Λωτοφάγοισιν
λωτὸν ἐρεπτόμενοι μενέμεν νόστου τε λαθέσθαι.


Well, do you know there is a brief dialogue in "Pickwick" that seems almost as enchanted, to me. The scene is the manor-farm kitchen, on Christmas eve.

"'How it snows,' said one of the men, in a low voice.

"'Snows, does it?' said Wardle.

"'Rough, cold night, sir,' replied the man, 'and there's a wind got up that drifts it across the fields, in a thick white cloud.'

"'What does Jem say?' inquired the old lady. 'There ain't anything the matter, is there?'

"'No, no, mother,' replied Wardle; 'he says there's a snow-drift, and a wind that's piercing cold.'"

You know this is the introduction to the Tale of Gabriel Grub, an admirable legend which Dickens "farsed" with an obtrusive moral. But I confess that the atmosphere (which to me seems all the wild weather and the wild legend of the north) suggested by those phrases "a thick white cloud," and "a wind that's piercing cold" is in my judgment wholly marvellous. But Dickens, of course, is full of impressions which never become expressions. You remember that chapter about the lawyer's clerks in the "Magpie and Stump"? It is always quite pathetic to me to note how Dickens felt the strangeness, the mystery, the haunting that are like a mist about the old Inns of Court, and how utterly unable he was to express his emotion—to find a fit symbol for his meaning. He takes refuge, as it were, behind Jack Bamber, who tells two very insignificant legends as to the mystery of the Inns. Dickens feels that these legends are insignificant, and throws in one that is pure burlesque, and then changes the subject in despair; the vague impression has refused to be put into words; probably, indeed, it had stopped short of becoming thought. But I am afraid that if I once begin to talk about the defects and faults of Dickens I shall run on for ever, and I think you will be able to find out his laches quite well for yourself. What I want to insist on is his sense of mystery, his withdrawal from common life, and, finally, his ecstasy. I have not proved my case up to the hilt by a thorough-going analysis of "Pickwick," but I think I have suggested the "heads" of such an analysis. There is ecstasy in the main idea, in the thought of the man who wanders away from his familiar streets into unknown tracks and lanes and villages, there is ecstasy in the conception of all those queer, grotesque characters, reminders each one of the strangeness of life, there is ecstasy in the thought of the wild Christmas Eve, of the fields and woods scourged by "a wind that's piercing cold," hidden by the thick cloud of snow, there is ecstasy in that vague impression of the old, dark, Inns, of the "rotten" chambers that had been shut up for years and years. In a word: "Pickwick" is fine literature.

----So far, Machen.

I'm about to complete, at last, a reading of Pickwick -- which Machen's recluse says he reads annually!
 

Back
Top