Woolfian Boundaries - Clemson University

Woolfian Boundaries - Clemson University Woolfian Boundaries - Clemson University

23.12.2012 Views

132 WOOLFIAN BOUNDARIES of Harriet’s appearance. “Political” because Harriet and John were crucial fi gures in the women’s suff rage movement: John through his activities as an MP and as the author of Th e Subjection of Women (1869) and Harriet through her essay, “Th e Enfranchisement of Women” (1851) and through her profound infl uence on John. So it is notable that in her essay, which was published just a little over one year after women had for the fi rst time voted in Britain, Woolf invokes Harriet as though she is noting a signifi cant lacuna, a gap in the way the struggle for representation is being represented in this repository of national memory. Ultimately, the political and aesthetic senses of representation become thoroughly intertwined in the NPG. Th e very London spaces Woolf traverses in “Pictures and Portraits” would have evoked still-fresh memories of the struggle for the vote. Trafalgar Square had been an important location for pro-suff rage speeches and parades, and in 1914 suff ragettes had entered the NG to slash Velasquez’s Rokeby Venus and the NPG to desecrate Millais’s Portrait of Th omas Carlyle. Notably, the choice of paintings in these acts focused attention to the distinctive rationales underpinning each museum. To attack Venus was to attack beauty itself, while an assault on Th omas Carlyle was also an assault on an early advocate and trustee of the NPG. 7 Carlyle, moreover, had helped to strengthen the ideological grounds for the gallery by stressing the “hero worship” of great men—a view Woolf references and undermines in Jacob’s Room (1922)—as well as portraiture’s importance as a means through which these men might be worshipped. Had Woolf cast her eyes upwards when she failed to enter the NPG, she would have discerned that one of the portrait busts carved in stone above the Figure 5 door belonged to Carlyle (see Figure 5). Th e subject of the struggle for political representation returns us to Kapp’s Personalities. In her essay, as she transitions away from the subject of the NPG to that of Kapp’s art, Woolf casually (but surely very pointedly) notes the disparity between the number of women and men included in the book, implying continuity between its biases and those of the gallery,

Borderline Personalities: Woolf Reviews Kapp 133 which at this time had about one portrait of a woman for every nine of men (Holmes). “Th erefore we turn eagerly,” she writes, “though we have paused too long about it, to see what faces Mr Kapp provides for the twenty-three gentlemen and the one old lady whom he calls Personalities” (164). “Th ere is very little,” she continues, “of the anonymous about any of the twenty-four. Th ere is scarcely a personality, from Mr Bernard Shaw to Mrs Grundy, whom we have not seen in the fl esh” (164-65). Th is “scarcely” is an important qualifi cation. Whereas Woolf knew from personal experience what George Bernard Shaw looked like, she certainly could not have laid eyes upon Mrs. Grundy, the book’s “one old lady,” at least, not in any simple way. Mrs. Grundy was not the stuff of fl esh and bone, but a fi gure of speech, or a type, and she is certainly the most anonymous of the twenty-four (see Figure 6). She is an embodiment of conventional propriety and prudery and, as such, is twice mentioned by John Stuart Mill in Th e Subjection of Women. Mrs. Grundy’s insubstantiality was established from the moment of her inception. In Th omas Morton’s 1798 play Speed the Plough she is invoked as a fi gure of neighborly opinion, without ever actually appearing on stage. Rather, her opinions are mouthed by others. “What,” they fret, “would Mrs Grundy say?” 8 Figure 6

Borderline Personalities: Woolf Reviews Kapp<br />

133<br />

which at this time had about one portrait of a woman for every nine of men (Holmes).<br />

“Th erefore we turn eagerly,” she writes, “though we have paused too long about it, to see<br />

what faces Mr Kapp provides for the twenty-three gentlemen and the one old lady whom he<br />

calls Personalities” (164). “Th ere is very little,” she continues, “of the anonymous about any<br />

of the twenty-four. Th ere is scarcely a personality, from Mr Bernard Shaw to Mrs Grundy,<br />

whom we have not seen in the fl esh” (164-65). Th is “scarcely” is an important qualifi cation.<br />

Whereas Woolf knew from personal experience what George Bernard Shaw looked like, she<br />

certainly could not have laid eyes upon Mrs. Grundy, the book’s “one old lady,” at least, not<br />

in any simple way. Mrs. Grundy was not the stuff of fl esh and bone, but a fi gure of speech,<br />

or a type, and she is certainly the most anonymous of the twenty-four (see Figure 6). She is<br />

an embodiment of conventional propriety and prudery and, as such, is twice mentioned by<br />

John Stuart Mill in Th e Subjection of Women. Mrs. Grundy’s insubstantiality was established<br />

from the moment of her inception. In Th omas Morton’s 1798 play Speed the Plough she is invoked<br />

as a fi gure of neighborly opinion, without ever actually appearing on stage. Rather, her<br />

opinions are mouthed by others. “What,” they fret, “would Mrs Grundy say?” 8<br />

Figure 6

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!