I have been intrigued by how the question of rights pervades
this novel, particularly as it relates to land ownership and women’s
rights. It seems a bit obvious to simply
say that Howards End, both the novel
as a whole and the house of its namesake within the text, has a great deal to
do with both who has a right to occupy the space, but there is also this
psychological dimension to the whole thing that paradoxically questions to what
extent one continues to care about such things after living there. A continuum of several instances in the novel
inform this line of questioning for me: Mrs. Wilcox’s obvious reverence for the
space (evidenced in Helen’s letters and confirmed once we know Mrs. Wilcox
better), Mrs. Wilcox’s very conservative claims at the luncheon with Margaret’s
friends (“I sometimes think it is wiser to leave action and discussion to
men.”-66); the debate upon Ruth’s death over Margaret’s right to Howards End
(just as much fueled by ethnic concerns as gender); and finally the discovery
of Helen’s pregnancy following the plot to commit her to an asylum. After this realization, and Henry’s
insistence on entering Howards End,
Forster writes of Margaret, “A new feeling came over her: she was
fighting for women against men. She did not care about rights, but if men came
into Howards End it should be over her body” (247). It seems like more a question of legal
legitimation catching up with social mores, but as the novel reminds us
repeatedly, social mores do not have any ipso
facto virtue (think of Leonard’s quest for culture) but are rather legitimized
by tradition, and in this case a tradition implicitly tied to certain
conceptions of property.
Additionally, these are just a couple of moments in the text
that stuck out to me:
When Mrs. Wilcox and Margaret are shopping, we get a bit of
free indirect discourse as Margaret and Ruth discuss what they give to their
servants: “’We always give the servants money,’ ‘Yes, do you, yes, much
easier,’ replied Margaret, but felt the grotesque impact of the unseen upon the
seen, and saw issuing from a forgotten manger at Bethlehem this torrent of
coins and toys. Vulgarity reigned”
(69). I am curious as to how this fits
with the other claims about poverty in the text. I’m not sure how to characterize what,
exactly, Forster is doing with poverty and poorness.
And did Leonard Bast really die by a bookshelf falling on
top of him? I’m not making that up,
right? That’s actually in the book I am
reading on page 277? The books catalyzed a cardiac episode? (“Books fell over
him in a shower.”)
I'm not sure I follow your comment about the relationship between the different characters' relationship to Howards End, property rights, and women's rights -- I hope you'll talk about it in class. Forster's attitude toward poverty -- a very good question. And you're right to locate the confusion in free indirect discourse because it's often very difficulty to separate the narrator from Margaret. My own sense, for what it's worth, is that this is one area where Forster's privilege leads to a fairly stereotypical insensitivity, but other critics have seen him as laying out the difficulty of finding an appropriate attitude and/or taking appropriate action. What is there besides neglect or condescension?
ReplyDeleteLeonard -- yes, killed by falling books (sort of). You don't think this is symbolic, do you?