“Yes, of course, if it’s fine tomorrow,” said Mrs. Ramsay. “But you’ll have to be up with the lark,” she added.”
The narrative style of To the Lighthouse is usually described as ‘stream of consciousness’. While there is no strict definition of this term, it struck me while reading the novel that this term is not quite right. Stream of consciousness, as demonstrated by Molly Bloom at the end of Ulysses for example, is a direct representation of the thoughts of the character in the first person. (“Yes, I said yes, I will, yes” etc). Whereas To the Lighthouse has an omniscient narrator who sits on the shoulders of Woolf’s characters and transcribes their thoughts in the third person. Normally this transcription is unfiltered and may as well be in the first person, but very occasionally the narrator interprets or passes comment on the character’s thoughts and feelings. The representation of consciousness is one of the most striking features of this novel – thoughts are chaotic, easily interrupted or distracted, and sometimes include intrusive or unwelcome. But the narrator is always there, inserting a slight distance between the character and the narrative. Take for example the opening paragraph of chapter 12. The narrator is watching Mrs Ramsay and her husband, and describes what they do as well as what they think:
“She folded the green shawl about her shoulders. She took his arm. His beauty was so great, she said, beginning to speak of Kennedy the gardener, at once he was so awfully handsome, that she couldn’t dismiss him. There was a ladder against the greenhouse, and little lumps of putty stuck about, for they were beginning to mend the greenhouse. Yes, but as she strolled along with her husband, she felt that that particular source of worry had been placed. She had it on the tip of her tongue to say, as they strolled, “It’ll cost fifty pounds,” but instead, for her heart failed her about money, she talked about Jasper shooting birds, and he said, at once, soothing her instantly, that it was natural in a boy, and he trusted he would find better ways of amusing himself before long. Her husband was so sensible, so just. And so she said, “Yes; all children go through stages,” and began considering the dahlias in the big bed, and wondering what about next year’s flowers, and had he heard the children’s nickname for Charles Tansley, she asked. The atheist, they called him, the little atheist. “
It is Mrs Ramsay who thinks her husband is sensible and just, not the narrator, but the slim distance between the two perspectives is important. Crucially it allows the point of view to flit between characters, so within a few lines of this paragraph the narrative is assumed by Mr Ramsay, a much more introspective, internally focussed point of view. What the narrator does not do is step away from the characters’ thoughts and provide any exposition. We are thrown into the middle of the Ramsay family holiday without being told who the family members are, who are their guests and servants, their occupations, or indeed anything to provide us with context. Who are these people? Slowly, through the narration and the conversation the reader is able to piece together an overview of the setting. The Ramsays are a large middle-class family on holiday in the Isle of Skye in Scotland. As well as their eight children they have several house-guests and a number of domestic servants. The house is on the coast and overlooks a bay where a large lighthouse is situated. Some of the children want to take a boat-trip out to the lighthouse the following day, but it is a long and rough journey and cannot happen unless the weather is fine, which it usually isn’t. Mr. Ramsay—a professor of philosophy—harshly tells the children the trip will be impossible.
In the first, longest section of the novel, the Ramsays are hosting a diverse group of intellectuals and artists at their holiday home. The narrative focuses on a single day during which Mrs Ramsay match-makes between her guests, reads her youngest son, James, a story, flatters the ego of her grumpy husband, and floats around the house noticing things. In the evening a grand dinner is served (more on which below) and the day ends with Mr and Mrs Ramsay reading alongside one another but failing to connect or communicate. The sketch is predominantly autobiographical – Mrs Ramsay is thinly-disguised a portrait of Woolf’s mother who died when Woolf was only 11, and was obviously deeply missed. To the Lighthouse is in many ways Woolf’s way of exorcising her grief at the loss of her mother.
The second, much shorter section of the novel, “Time Passes” was described by Woolf as a corridor between the The Window, set before the first World War, and The Lighthouse, the third section of the novel set some ten years later. The holiday home is viewed through the eyes of the domestic servant employed by the family to act as a caretaker for the house, and when they eventually decide to come back to renovate and clean it. Time Passes is a quite literal description of what happens. In the intervening decade Mrs Ramsay and two of her children die, and the house deteriorates badly in apparent sympathy with the family:
For now had come that moment, that hesitation when dawn trembles and night pauses, when if a feather alight in the scale it will be weighed down. One feather, and the house, sinking, falling, would have turned and pitched downwards to the depths of darkness. In the ruined room, picnickers would have lit their kettles; lovers sought shelter there, lying on the bare boards; and the shepherd stored his dinner on the bricks, and the tramp slept with his coat round him to ward off the cold. Then the roof would have fallen; briars and hemlocks would have blotted out path, step and window; would have grown, unequally but lustily over the mound, until some trespasser, losing his way, could have told only by a red-hot poker among the nettles, or a scrap of china in the hemlock, that here once some one had lived; there had been a house.
Here the abandoned home symbolises the state of the nation, damaged to the point of destruction by World War I. In casual, almost brutal parenthesis, the deaths of Mrs Ramsay and two of her children are announced. Alongside so much death in the Great War, in which almost no town, village or family was untouched, these announcements act as reminders of the everyday losses that the country suffered.
[A shell exploded. Twenty or thirty young men were blown up in France, among them Andrew Ramsay, whose death, mercifully, was instantaneous.]
In the final section of the novel, some of the surviving family members and a few former guests return to the reopened summer home. A grieving Mr Ramsay insists that the family must finally complete the long-delayed boat trip to the lighthouse and forces his now-teenage children, James and Cam, to join him. The teenagers deeply resent their father’s tyrannical, mourning behaviour and form a silent pact of resistance against him. The trip to the lighthouse is both an attempt to recover the lost pre-War days which in hindsight seemed so peaceful and to reconnect with his children, who as moody teenagers no longer respect their mourning father. Much of this section of the novel is told from the perspective of Lily Briscoe, one of the original house guests, a painter who sets up her easel in the exact spot she did a decade earlier. Remembering her earlier visit she also mourns for Mrs Ramsay. The novel ends as the fishing boat reaches the lighthouse and they disembark. The lighthouse is a multi-faceted symbol that works in a number of ways during the course of the novel, but here for me represents death or the end of life’s journey.
I wanted to take a closer look at some of the minor characters in To the Lighthouse, more specifically the domestic servants. The cook, Muriel, is first mentioned in chapter 10. Mrs Ramsay is wondering whether some of her house guests have returned from their walk, so she asks one of her children (Cam) to “ask Mildred if Andrew, Miss Doyle, and Mr. Rayley have come back?” She wonders “What message would Cam give the cook?” which tells us, indirectly that Muriel is not a family member or guest but a member of staff, and specifically the cook. Cam returns to tell her “that there was an old woman in the kitchen with very red cheeks, drinking soup out of a basin” whose message is that “”No, they haven’t, and I’ve told Ellen to clear away tea.” Ellen is another servant who is part of the support team that the household relies on but takes for granted. Chapter 10 ends with Mrs Ramsay finishing her reading of a story to James, and “In a moment he would ask her, “Are we going to the Lighthouse?” And she would have to say, “No: not tomorrow; your father says not.” Happily, Mildred came in to fetch them, and the bustle distracted them. But he kept looking back over his shoulder as Mildred carried him out, and she was certain that he was thinking, we are not going to the Lighthouse tomorrow; and she thought, he will remember that all his life.” James is six at this point, a bit old for being carried out by an old woman I would have thought, but this does suggest that Mildred is not just a cook but has child-caring responsibilities as well.
Mildred is next referred to during dinner preparations, where the main dish, a boeuf en daube, is described as “Mildred’s masterpiece”. When this dish is finally served (and there is strong suggestion that the cook has exaggerated its complexity to Mrs Ramsay – it is just a slow cooked stew) Mrs Ramsay accepts her guests praise for the dish without acknowledging Mildred’s hard work:
“an exquisite scent of olives and oil and juice rose from the great brown dish as Marthe (another anonymous servant), with a little flourish, took the cover off. The cook had spent three days over that dish. And she must take great care, Mrs. Ramsay thought, diving into the soft mass, to choose a specially tender piece for William Bankes. And she peered into the dish, with its shiny walls and its confusion of savoury brown and yellow meats and its bay leaves and its wine, and thought, This will celebrate the occasion–a curious sense rising in her, at once freakish and tender, of celebrating a festival, as if two emotions were called up in her, one profound–for what could be more serious than the love of man for woman, what more commanding, more impressive, bearing in its bosom the seeds of death; at the same time these lovers, these people entering into illusion glittering eyed, must be danced round with mockery, decorated with garlands.
“It is a triumph,” said Mr. Bankes, laying his knife down for a moment. He had eaten attentively. It was rich; it was tender. It was perfectly cooked. How did she manage these things in the depths of the country? he asked her. She was a wonderful woman. All his love, all his reverence, had returned; and she knew it.“It is a French recipe of my grandmother’s,” said Mrs. Ramsay, speaking with a ring of great pleasure in her voice.“
Later, after dinner, Mrs Ramsay wanders ethereally away from her guests to go and check on the children.
“She turned the handle, firmly, lest it should squeak, and went in, pursing her lips slightly, as if to remind herself that she must not speak aloud. But directly she came in she saw, with annoyance, that the precaution was not needed. The children were not asleep. It was most annoying. Mildred should be more careful. There was James wide awake and Cam sitting bolt upright, and Mildred out of bed in her bare feet, and it was almost eleven and they were all talking. What was the matter? It was that horrid skull again. She had told Mildred to move it, but Mildred, of course, had forgotten, and now there was Cam wide awake, and James wide awake quarreling when they ought to have been asleep hours ago. What had possessed Edward to send them this horrid skull? She had been so foolish as to let them nail it up there. It was nailed fast, Mildred said, and Cam couldn’t go to sleep with it in the room, and James screamed if she touched it.”
Cam is the youngest Ramsay daughter, at seven only a year older than her brother James. In this home (at least) they share a bedroom. Mrs Ramsay is annoyed with Mildred “out of bed and in her bare feet” because the children are not asleep. So as well as being the family cook, we can infer that Mildred is directly responsible for putting the children to bed. I doubt she sleeps in the same room as them, so the fact she is ‘out of bed’ suggests she has heard the children arguing and has got up to try and calm them down, when Mrs Ramsay walks in and blames her for the children’s misbehaviour and arguing. This reveals a contemptuous attitude towards a senior member of staff, which is compounded by the comment that Mildred “of course” had forgotten to move the skull. The ‘of course’ suggests Mrs Ramsay expects to be disappointed by her servants, as if Mildred hasn’t been busy cooking a stew for three days! Later in this paragraph Mildred explains that the skull is nailed fast, making it clear that she had not forgotten about it all, just that she was unable to move it. Of course, no apology is even considered. Servants are there to do as they are told.
The domestic female staff of the Ramsay household are ignored, neglected, taken for granted, disrespected, and under-valued. So what we have to try and work out is whether this is a subtly drawn portrait by Woolf of entitled middle-class people treating their servants – their employees – with a lack of respect, or whether this is a reflection of the way Woolf herself took her family servants for granted. It is a difficult call to make – we have to read the text closely to work out who the servants are (as opposed to the eight children and the various house guests) and Mrs Ramsay’s inner monologue doesn’t really help us. But there is another portrait of a servant in the novel that throws light on this issue. In Time Passes, we are introduced to Mrs McNab. Although she is the family’s housekeeper, she does not merit a mention in The Window. The portrait of her in Time Passes is largely unsympathetic. She walks with a lurch, rolling like a ship at sea. The narrator doesn’t explain why she walks this way, but it could have been caused by rickets, a common condition for working people at the time (particularly Hebridean people with limit access to some foodstuffs) caused by a calcium deficiency. What Woolf’s narrator is noticing is that old servants walk in a ‘funny’ way without considering why. She also ‘leers’ instead of looking directly at things, which we are told is because she is ‘witless’. And as working class people often do (when written by middle-class authors) she sings to herself:
“As she lurched (for she rolled like a ship at sea) and leered (for her eyes fell on nothing directly, but with a sidelong glance that deprecated the scorn and anger of the world–she was witless, she knew it), as she clutched the banisters and hauled herself upstairs and rolled from room to room, she sang.,,, a sound issued from her lips–something that had been gay twenty years before on the stage perhaps, had been hummed and danced to, but now, coming from the toothless, bonneted, care-taking woman, was robbed of meaning, was like the voice of witlessness, humour, persistency itself, trodden down but springing up again, so that as she lurched, dusting, wiping, she seemed to say how it was one long sorrow and trouble, how it was getting up and going to bed again, and bringing things out and putting them away again.”
Not satisfied with patronising and caricaturing this hard-working housekeeper, Woolf continue to denigrate her. She is “bowed down … with weariness…. creaking and groaning on her knees”. Her “sidelong leer which slipped and turned aside even from her own face, and her own sorrows, stood and gaped in the glass, aimlessly smiling”. The narrator attempts to capture Mrs McNab’s thoughts, but for once the attempt falls flat:
“Visions of joy there must have been at the wash-tub, say with her children (yet two had been base-born and one had deserted her), at the public-house, drinking; turning over scraps in her drawers. Some cleavage of the dark there must have been, some channel in the depths of obscurity through which light enough issued to twist her face grinning in the glass and make her, turning to her job again, mumble out the old music hall song….Mrs. McNab continued to drink and gossip as before.”
Even the washer-woman, the narrator speculates, must have some fond memories of her children, even though two of them were illegitimate. A kind interpretation would be that Woolf is here acknowledging that even working class woman, condemned to a life of drudgery and child-bearing, have an internal life, hopes and dreams – but I am not convinced, and that final dismissive summary – “Mrs McNab continued to drink and gossip as before” – makes me wonder whether Woolf really thought of her servants as authentic, valuable human beings. There is evidence to suggest her relationships with her own servants were troubled – see Alison Light’s account in Mrs Woolf and the Servants for example.
I appreciate this aspect of the novel is simply one part and should not be given overdue emphasis. It certainly didn’t spoil the novel for me. But equally I did not want to ignore it, when the more obvious aspects of the novel – the Modernist exploration of consciousness, the complex narrative point of view, and the abundant use of symbolism – have been so thoroughly explored elsewhere. To be fair to Woolf she does not ignore her servant characters completely, as was often the case in earlier novels (see this post for more on the invisibility of servants in nineteenth century novels), they are given names and thoughts, but they are marginalised and disrespected, which is not much better.
The Reading Bug 