Queer Plotting in Henry James's the Princess Casamassima

Home , The Europeans

Masarykova univerzita Filozofická fakulta

Katedra anglistiky a amerikanistiky

Bakalářská diplomová práce

Kristýna Guricová 2011

2011 Kristýna Guricová

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Kristýna Guricová

Queer Plotting in Henry James’s The Princess Casamassima Bachelor‟s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Dr. Michael M. Kaylor, M.A., Ph.D.

2011

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………….. Kristýna Guricová

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my supervisor – Dr. Michael M. Kaylor, M.A., Ph.D. – for his kind guidance and helpful advice.

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

HENRY JAMES AND THE „QUEER‟ ...... 4

THE JAMESIAN QUEER PLOTTING ...... 9

THE „QUEER‟ IN HYACINTH ROBINSON ...... 13

THE „QUEER‟ TRIANGLE OF THE PRINCESS CASAMASSIMA ...... 20

CONCLUSION ...... 30

WORKS CITED ...... 32

RESUME (in English) ...... 34

RESUMÉ (česky) ...... 35

INTRODUCTION

Might I remind you that the greatest artists and philosophers did not enjoy the benefits of heterosexuality.1

Philip Larkin to Kingsley Amis

Henry James is, without doubt, one of the most distinguished figures of the nineteenth-century literature. James‟s extensive collection of literary works encompasses various forms of writing, including works of fiction, criticism, biographies, theatre plays, etc., and his writing has greatly influenced many notable authors, for instance,

Ernest Hemingway, Willa Cather, Gertrude Stein, Sherwood Anderson and many others

(Haralson 2). Most importantly, James is one of the most discussed writers in literary criticism regarding sexuality, especially same-sex desires and the development of homosexual identity (Stevens ix). This kind of literary criticism is being referred to as „queer‟ literary criticism, and is related to a field of critical theory called „queer theory‟

(Stevens ix). Scholars dealing with queer theory take a deep interest in Henry James because of the sexual subtext and ambiguity of his works, such as his portrayal of eroticism, the „deviant‟ and especially „queerness‟ in the sense of homosexuality. For instance, Hugh

Stevens – the author of a study on Henry James and Sexuality – defines James as “a gay novelist, who created lasting fictions which, ahead of their time, explore the workings of same-sex desire, and the difficulties of admitting such desires, within a cultural formation marked by homosexual prohibition” (115). Nevertheless, the question whether James should be defined as a „gay‟ or „queer‟ author, and the way that „queerness‟ should be read in his works are still subjects of discussion among many literary critics.

This thesis focuses on one of Henry James‟s major – but not so well-known – novels, The Princess Casamassima. The Princess Casamassima was first published serially

1 Qtd. in Higgins 16.

in the Atlantic Monthly in 1885 and 1886; then, it was published as a novel in 1886.2

The novel received various reviews, from praising (“We find no fault with Mr. Henry

James‟s The Princess Casamassima; it is a great novel…the drama works simply and naturally; the cause and effects are logically related; the theme made literature without ceasing to be life”) to highly critical (“one of the worst books [no reasons given] by a good writer that I have ever read”) (qtd. in Cargill 116). Alan W. Bellringer, the author of the study Henry James, describes The Princess Casamassima as a novel which “bravely explores the English scene in connection with revolutionary politics,” and touches on the theme of the relationship between art and society (69). Moreover, Bellringer notes the English influence on James in the novel, which is praised as “being in the tradition of Dickens and Thackeray” (126).

Another literary critic, Joel Salzberg, implies that James, based on his Preface, never intended The Princess Casamassima to be “a closely detailed examination of anarchism,” but rather that “the emphasis belongs on James‟s exploration of the emotional as well as the social origins of the self, an aspect of his fiction that typically remains muted or allusive”

(134-135). Derek Brewer introduces the Penguin edition of The Princess Casamassima as follows:

The Princess Casamassima must be read by anyone interested in the contrasts between wealth and poverty, fineness of spirit and vulgarity, terrorism and beauty, as they attract and afflict our feelings. It is relevant today as when it was first published in 1886. Our dilemmas are almost as acute, the agonies, though different, are hardly less, the solutions are as hard as ever to find. (7)

Naturally, there is a variety of critical approaches to The Princess Casamassima, and these examples were chosen to provide a basic introduction to the novel. Nevertheless, it is important to mention that The Princess Casamassima is usually not the main concern of „queer‟ literary criticism, for sexual themes in this novel are more indirect and subtle than in other James‟s works. The thesis applies the „queer‟ reading to this challenging novel, and focuses on the analysis of the character of Hyacinth Robinson and of the queer rivalry

2 Since there are several editions of The Princess Casamassima, it should be pointed out that this thesis works with the first Harper Torchbook edition of the novel published in 1962.

plot represented by the triangle of Hyacinth, the Princess Casamassima and Paul

Muniment.

The thesis will endeavor to explain the basic concept of „queerness‟ in the writing of Henry James, and demonstrate the „queer‟ reading on the novel The Princess Casamassima, specifically by examining the queer plot, and then decide whether Hyacinth Robinson can be defined as a „queer.‟ The thesis works with the novel The Princess Casamassima by Henry

James as a primary source for analysis. As secondary sources, following literature is discussed: regarding the theoretical part dealing with „queer‟ reading of James‟s writing in general, works Henry James and Queer Modernity by Eric Haralson and Henry James and

Sexuality by Hugh Stevens proved to be particularly helpful; then, for the analysis, various journal articles related to the topic were consulted.

The first chapter of the thesis provides a basic overview of the queer theory, focusing on the explanation of the term „queer,‟ the development of its meaning and the way „queer‟ is interpreted in literary criticism. In addition, various approaches to reading the writing of Henry James are discussed, specifically regarding „queerness.‟

The second chapter concentrates on the standard Jamesian queer plot. The concept of the queer plot is introduced, including the process of its development. Moreover, several examples from James‟s works are examined, particularly novels The Bostonians and

The Princess Casamassima. The third chapter is devoted to the analysis of Hyacinth Robinson, the hero of The Princess Casamassima, and attempts to demonstrate the „queer‟ in Hyacinth.

The fourth chapter focuses on the queer rivalry plot in The Princess Casamassima – the triangle of Hyacinth, the Princess and Paul Muniment, and discusses the relationships between these characters in relation to „queerness.‟

HENRY JAMES AND THE ‘QUEER’

If sexuality is to be disclosed, what will be taken as the true determinant of its meaning: the phantasy structure, the act, the orifice, the gender, the anatomy?3

Judith Butler

In order to understand the principles of „queerness‟ and a „queer plot,‟ it is necessary briefly to introduce the concept of queer theory. In her study Queer Theory: An Introduction,

Annamarie Jagose provides an explanation of queer theory, including its historical background as well as the development of the liberation movements, etc. Nevertheless, first, the essential element of queer theory needs to be examined, and that is the term

„queer.‟

To define „queer‟ (or „queerness‟) is quite a challenge, for it is an indefinite term with a complicated history. The term „queer‟ changed its meaning over the centuries; for instance, Jagose points out that at best, it was slang for homosexual, and at worst, it was a term of homophobic abuse (1). Majority of literature on queer theory provides, rather than a definition, an anti-definition of „queer‟ which, according to scholars, better reflects everything that „queer‟ stands for. The modern meaning of queer is perceived sometimes as “an umbrella term for a coalition of culturally marginal sexual identifications,” and at other times “a nascent theoretical model which has developed out of more traditional lesbian and gay studies” (Jagose 1). In his work Henry James and Queer Modernity, Eric

Haralson features a suggestion for „queerness,‟ originally introduced by David Halperin

(a significant queer theorist): “Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence…describing a horizon of possibility whose precise extent and heterogeneous scope cannot in principle be delimited in advance” (qtd. in Haralson 1).

Within its modern meaning, „queer‟ is “a zone of possibilities” which is embraced by queer

3 Qtd. in Higgins 3.

theory focusing on “mismatches between sex, gender and desire” (qtd. in Jagose 2-3).

Same-sex desire definitely plays a significant role in queer theory; however, the theory also provides new ways of thinking about fixed sexual identities as well as about some essential notions, such as „sexuality‟ and „gender‟ (Jagose 1-3). Most importantly, queer theory, and thereby also „queer,‟ does not categorize: it rather denies fixed sexual identities, such as „heterosexual,‟ „homosexual,‟ „gay‟ and „lesbian,‟ and perceives identity as a more fluid concept. These basic ideas about „queer‟ and „queerness‟ are essential for the further examination of the term „queer‟ in literature, and James‟s works in particular.

In nowadays literary criticism, the use of the word „queer‟ as such is usually understood in the sense of „homosexual.‟ However, such approach is rather historically inaccurate, for, as already mentioned before, the meaning of „queer‟ changed, and, most importantly, it had not always been associated with sexuality, or homosexuality in particular. For instance, Haralson argues:

[…] it is not immediately apparent how […] phenomena queer in fiction of the Victorian and modern periods, can be related to the discourse of sexuality, or homosexuality, as such. […] in Anglo-American literature from the nineteenth century to the early twentieth century, most of [„queer‟ things] have no evident connection to sexuality. (4)

Moreover, Haralson examines literature written between the mid-1870s and the mid-1930s, and demonstrates the different use of the expression „queer‟ on several examples from works of prominent authors, for instance:

[…] “single gentlemen lodgers” were “a queer lot” (Joseph Conrad, The Secret Agent, 1906/7); men apparently had to worry about women “turning „queer‟” with age (Edith Wharton, Ethan Frome, 1911); genius, too, could be a “queer thing” (James Joyce, Ulysses, 1922); horses might think it “queer” to stop without a farmhouse near (Robert Frost, “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening,” 1923); and female poets were also “a queer lot” (Amy Lowell, “The Sisters,” 1925). (qtd. in Haralson 5-6)

According to Haralson, these examples show that „queer‟ in literature was used in many connotations different from homosexual meaning, and that „queerness‟ – whether in things

or persons – “often referred to an internal heterogeneity […] that simultaneously perplexed, attracted, alienated, and possibly mirrored the putatively normal outside observer” (5).

In The Princess Casamassima, there are also multiple examples of the use of the expression „queer‟. For instance, Muniment opening a “queerly-placed” window; referring to Madame Grandoni as “the queer old lady, who was as queer as before;”

Hyacinth saying that Millicent‟s “talk‟s a queer mixture” but “not queerer than [his] life”

(James 121, 193, 451). Hardly any of these examples can possibly imply a homosexual meaning.

Nevertheless, when did „queer‟ came to include „homosexual‟ among its meaning?

Haralson explains it as a broad, complex cultural process, which originated sometime between the late-nineteenth and the early-twentieth century (7-8). Moreover, Haralson argues that, in literature of that period, the recurrent recourse of „queer‟ “to evoke an uncanny emotion or a densely homosocial environment indicates the term‟s adaptability or inclination to its evolving sexual meaning” (6). Therefore, “the quality of diffuseness or indeterminacy […] that distinguished queer is precisely what recommended the term to writers or narratives preoccupied with the murky dynamics of modern sexualities”

(Haralson 6). On the whole, „queer‟ can be read not only as a marker of sexual ambiguity but also as a marker of various difference; sometimes just the vague community impression that some people “don‟t seem to fit in right” (qtd. in Haralson 3).

In addition to the use of word „queer‟ as such, critics recognize „queerness‟ in literature through a so-called „queer reading‟ which can be defined as reading and interpreting writing in a sexually-related way, specifically regarding same-sex desire. Such reading is a matter of interpretation, and the opinions of scholars differ. Some read same-sex bonds as the sign of mere brotherhoods or sisterly companionships; others as a sign of same-sex desire (Haralson 13). For instance, regarding „queerness‟ of James‟s writing, there are two notable British authors who produced early texts that read male

homosexuality into James‟s work – Louis Umfreville Wilkinson alias Louis Marlow, “best remembered as an ardent young friend of the „incomparable‟ Oscar Wilde,” and Hugh

Walpole, “James‟s own dear acolyte” (Haralson 19). However, Haralson raises a question whether “[i]s it necessary that an author intend for a text to be queer in order for it to be read queerly?” (5). At this point, literary critics argue whether or not are the sexual implications in such works, specifically in James‟s, intentional. On the one hand, Stevens argues that James‟s writing is “extremely self-conscious about the constraints and injunctions surrounding representations of the erotic and the deviant” (x). On the other hand, Haralson notes that there are some critics who suggest that homosexual implications in James‟s work are a mere result of queer reading, and thereby not plausible. Furthermore, they are skeptic that James would have been thinking of „homosexual‟ when he wrote

„queer,‟ and note that he used the language of his time and not ours (Haralson 6-7).

Hence, concerning James‟s writing, should be „queer‟ read as „homosexual‟? Should be his writing read „queerly‟? Should be James considered a „queer‟ or „gay‟ writer? Many literary critics are trying to find the „right‟ answer; thus, various approaches have been presented over the years. Regardless, Henry James is considered to be the master of ambiguity, indirectness and subtlety, and his writing can be interpreted in various ways.

Even though the use of the expression „queer‟ in James‟s writing may not refer to homosexuality directly, there is an undeniable presence of the motive of same-sex desire in his works as pointed out by many literary critics. There are two arguments that need to be taken into consideration as well: first, Stevens‟s argument that James‟s writing reflects

“an informed response to changing notions of homosexuality” of the late Victorian culture which he describes as “a culture in which scientific constructions of sexuality gained increasing prestige, and in which newly punitive legal régime contributed to the stigmatization of the sexual „deviant;‟” second, Haralson‟s argument that James‟s works show “resistance to the reductive constraints of both the normative order

of masculinity and the discourse of homo/sexuality”(Stevens ix; Haralson 24). Agnieszka

M. Soltysik also works with Stevens‟s arguments in her essay “Recovering „Covering End‟:

What Queer Theory Can Do for „The Turn of the Screw‟”:

Although the homosexual punning of [“Covering End”] would be obvious to a reader who is prepared to see it, there is enough heterosexual punning to keep the story straight for a straight audience. [T]he political climate of the 1890s required James to keep his punning ambiguous enough never to be tainted with any real accusation of homosexuality [...]. That is why, although his stories of this period consistently work through the queer issues of strange triangles [...], secret knowledge and/or potentially scandalous exposure [...], James manages never to name the unnameable, never to specify weakly or strongly, and never to get caught or un-“covered”. (qtd. in Soltysik 247-252)

Therefore, arguments suggesting homoerotic undertones can be applied to many of James‟s works. In the end, it always depends on the interpretation of particular readers and their preferences. For the purpose of this thesis, the approach of „queer reading‟ will be adopted, and the thesis will attempt to demonstrate the „queer‟ in the sense of „homosexual‟ in The Princess Casamassima.

THE JAMESIAN QUEER PLOTTING

Since our Desire cannot take the route which is straightest, Let us choose the crooked.4 W. H. Auden

One of the features of the Jamesian style related to „queerness‟ is a narrative device of a „queer plot.‟ According to Stevens, the „standard Jamesian queer plot,‟ to which Henry

James often returns throughout his career, involves “a struggle for possession, and ends in a tragic, violent dénouement” (90). Rivalry is one of the key aspects of the plot; however, unlike in the classic rivalry plot (which involves a struggle between two men for a woman, when one of the heroes must get and the other one lose the prize), the two heroes in the queer plot are a man and a woman, but the struggle is of the same general character

(qtd. in Stevens 90). Furthermore, Stevens defines James‟s queer rivalry plots as “possessive struggles in which the competitors are given different handicaps,” and which “contrast the legitimation of heterosexual affection with the lack of recognition accorded to same-sex unions” (90). James developed the concept of the queer plot gradually throughout some of his earliest novels, such as Watch and Ward (1871) and Roderick Hudson (1875), and elaborated it in his novel The Bostonians (1886), which preceded The Princess Casamassima

(Stevens 90).

In The Bostonians, the two rivals are a man and a woman, cousins Basil Ransom and

Olive Chancellor, competing for a young girl, Verena Tarrant, who is Olive‟s protégée; therefore, “the privileging of heterosexual bonds over homosexual bonds” plays a crucial role in this struggle (Stevens 90). In this regard, The Bostonians is a very notable novel: being referred to as a „lesbian novel‟ or „a novel about lesbianism,‟ “[it], more than any other

Jamesian text, has incited a huge outpouring of homophobic literary criticism” (Stevens

92). For instance, Terry Castle points out that “criticism of The Bostonians wants both to decry and deny the novel‟s „lesbianism,‟” and regards the character of Olive Chancellor

4 Qtd. in Higgins ix.

as a “horrid” – pathological, morbid and hysterical – lesbian; R. D. Gooder notes that Basil

Ransom is a much more sympathetic character than Olive, therefore, “we are so anxious for Ransom to win the struggle” (qtd. in Stevens 92-93). Dealing with the relationship of Olive and Verena, “James appears to be suggesting something „dangerous,‟ unnatural and unreasonable, but the reader is free not to follow him, even if this decision not to follow can only be made after some degree of cognitive tracking has made the danger recognizable” (Stevens 96). Once again, the reader encounters the brilliance of the Jamesian ambiguity, and finds himself at crossroads: „free‟ to choose his own way of interpreting the story. In The Bostonians, readers can choose to regard the relationship as an acceptable friendship, or to read more into it – to read the relationship of Olive and

Verena „queerly.‟ Some critics suggest that Olive‟s relationship with Verena can be viewed as a „Boston marriage,‟ which is “a late nineteenth-century term for „a long-term monogamous relationship between two otherwise unmarried women‟” (qtd. in Stevens 93).

However, Stevens argues that if James describes a „Boston marriage,‟ he also

“knowingly foregrounds the eroticism of such a marriage, and reveals its subversive force by subjecting it to a battle for possession – a struggle between the terms of conventional and „Boston‟ marriage” (96). James wants his reader to understand that Olive is passionately and erotically attracted to Verena (Stevens 97). Stevens also emphasizes the boldness of the novel. Even though there is no sexual relationship between the two women (the physical contact between Olive and Verena does not go beyond tender kisses and embraces), James vividly depicts the erotic tensions: the novel “just drips with [Olive‟s desire for Verena],” and that “the centrality of this desire to the text forces [the reader] to consider the form of their relationship” (Stevens 96). Nevertheless, Stevens points out that the importance of The Bostonians is not because it is presenting a „Boston‟ marriage, but rather because “it actively questions the terms governing human relationships, whether same-sex or heterosexual, whether married or [free]” (93). In other words, the novel

questions „queerness.‟ Read „queerly,‟ the novel “spells out the tension between same-sex friendship and marriage in black and white, and does so through a thorough exploration of the terms of sexual identity” (Stevens 101). Whereas The Bostonians resembles The Princess

Casamassima regarding “same-sex relationships which exceed the terms of „friendship,‟” the novel remains “unique in its exploration of reciprocated affection within a same-sex union”

(Stevens 103).

Unlike The Bostonians, The Princess Casamassima is not so boldly portraying same-sex affection. Even though the title of the novel is The Princess Casamassima, the main character is Hyacinth Robinson, a young bookbinder. Hyacinth is a bastard son of an English lord, who is murdered by his mistress, a French dressmaker, Hyacinth‟s mother. Therefore, the hero is brought up in poverty by his mother‟s friend, a spinster dressmaker, Miss

Pynsent. Hyacinth starts a career of a bookbinder; however, he also develops interests in arts. Influenced by poverty and suffering of the people around him, he is drawn into a circle of revolutionalists, and, in his excitement, he makes a „sacred vow‟ to assassinate one of the major politics when the time comes. Right after his commitment, Hyacinth is introduced to the world of wealth, beauty and arts by the beautiful and mysterious Princess

Casamassima. The hero is fascinated by new opportunities and experiences, and his way of perceiving the world changes: he loses his radical opinions, and no longer wishes to fulfill the „beastly cause.‟ Yet, Hyacinth does not want to break his vow because he feels that it would be against his honor. Hyacinth‟s inner struggle ends up in a tragic climax – he commits a suicide by shooting himself in the heart. This represents only a short summary of the plot. The story is much more complex and interpreted by literary critics in many different ways, especially regarding the reasons for Hyacinth‟s suicide. As for the queer plotting, the theme of homoeroticism in The Princess Casamassima is more subtle and indirect than in The Bostonians, and, most importantly, the same-sex relationship, in this case, involves two men. The queer plot in The Princess Casamassima is represented by

the male hero, Hyacinth Robinson, struggling with his affection to a woman, Princess

Casamassima, and another man, Paul Muniment, a revolutionary leader.

THE ‘QUEER’ IN HYACINTH ROBINSON

A man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth.5 Oscar Wilde

Before concentrating on the triangle of the hero, the Princess and Paul Muniment, the character of Hyacinth Robinson needs to be analyzed. First question that comes on one‟s mind probably is whether Hyacinth can be defined as a „queer,‟ or rather

„homosexual.‟ Because of many different possibilities of interpretation, the answer is not straight forward. For instance, John L. Kimmey at the beginning of his essay “The Princess

Casamassima and the Quality of Bewilderment” states that “[t]here is no more tragic and ambiguous figure in all of Henry James‟s novels than Hyacinth Robinson” (47). Indeed, it is apparent that the hero does not represent a typical male character of that period.

According to Haralson, modern manhood was then articulated by

the normative script of a fixed national identity, a vulgarizing, homogenizing career in business and commerce, a middle-class philistinism and puritanical asceticism in the reception of beauty, and crucially, a mature life of heterosexual performance as suitor, spouse, physical partner, and paterfamilias. (3)

Throughout his career, Henry James struggled to create alternative styles of masculinity (he began trying out “dissident modes of masculinity” particularly in his novels Roderick Hudson and The Europeans) which resulted in his valorizing the character of the “disaffiliated aesthete” (Haralson 3, 22). Haralson claims that this modern aesthete‟s difference from other men may be attributed to „queerness‟ in the emergent sense of „homosexuality‟ in

an anticipatory sense inasmuch as the very attributes, affective qualities, and final dispositions James assigns [him] correspond powerfully with developments in a discursive and regulatory regime that was incrementally composing the figure […] of the modern male homosexual, especially under the stigma of aesthetical “effeminacy”. (Haralson 23-24)

To a certain level, this pattern can be applied to Hyacinth Robinson as well.

5 Qtd. in Higgins ix.

First, the hero‟s name itself needs to be considered. Usually, the name implies something about a character. Henry James gave the bookbinder name Hyacinth – a name representing a flower, which is rather feminine, and suggests that the hero‟s nature is rather delicate. Moreover, Hyacinth or Hyacinthus is a Greek mythological hero who was a lover of god Apollo, which suggests homoerotic subtext of the novel.6 On the contrary, the name Muniment fully represents masculinity, for in Latin it stands for defense, protection, fortification, which is also stressed out by Millicent accidentally referring to

Paul as “Mr. Monument” (James 139, Dictionary.com). Hyacinth‟s delicacy and fragility is also enhanced by his physical appearance, for he is described as a small man with narrow chest and a delicate hand of a gentleman, whose figure is “almost childishly slight;” however, there is something exotic about him (James 69). The hero makes an impression of a porcelain doll because of his pale complexion, perfect features and large eyes:

“a painter […] would have liked to make a sketch of him” (James 69). What also adds to

Hyacinth‟s delicacy is the fact that he, unlike Muniment for instance, often blushes and flushes (e.g. when Captain Sholto expressed his friendliness to Hyacinth publicly in the theatre), whether because of embarrassment or pleasure, and gets emotional, even in rather banal situations – for instance, when he learns that Muniment does not fully trust him during their first meeting: “[i]t was an effort for a moment to keep the tears from his eyes”

(James 113-114, 138). Regarding his personality, Hyacinth is an intelligent, sensitive young man with good manners. He admires beautiful things, and is very fond of life: “[t]hough he was poor and obscure and cramped and full of unattainable desires, nothing in life had such an interest or such price for him as his impressions and reflections” which “came from everything he touched, they made him vibrate, kept him thrilled and throbbing;”

6 The classical tale of Apollo and Hyacinthus involves a possessive struggle of Apo llo and Zephyrus for a beautiful young boy, Hyacinthus; Apollo wins the boy over, introduces him to his world, and educates him in arts and skills; in the end, Hyacinth dies because of the doing of jealous Zephyrus – however, the boy lives forever in Apollo‟s heart and rises each spring as a gorgeous flower (Calimach 87-93). In a way, this story can be translated to The Princess Casamassima as well: the Princess representing Apollo by introducing Hyacinth to the world of arts and beauty, and Muniment representing Zephyrus by, partly, causing Hyacinth‟s death.

“everything struck him, penetrated, stirred” (James 119). Most importantly, he is an idealist whose “dominating ideas are outside himself, and his torment is to relate himself to these outside ideas” as Sister Jane Marie Luecke suggests in her essay “„The Princess

Casamassima‟: Hyacinth‟s Fallible Consciousness” (275). As a consequence, Hyacinth sees only what he wants to see in others; therefore, he blindly follows other people: first, Paul

Muniment and his revolutionary ideas, then, Princess Casamassima and her world of wealth and beauty. Muniment and the Princess thus believe that Hyacinth has no opinions of his own. Furthermore, Hyacinth is constantly being referred to as “poor Robinson” or “little friend” by the others; even the narrator refers to him patronizingly as “our little hero”, which does not create an impression of a strong character, rather it encourages the reader to pity him.

Some critics, for instance Brewer and Kimmey, also emphasize the duality of Hyacinth‟s character, and the fact that Hyacinth is not what he appears. When Millicent, seeing her childhood friend again after several years, marks that she has expected Hyacinth to become an actor, Hyacinth is about to answer her that he wishes to “go through life in his own character,” but he realizes that “[h]e was to cover that up as carefully as possible; he was to go through life in a mask, in a borrowed mantle; he was to be every day and every hour an actor” (James 74). According to Kimmey, Hyacinth is “fated never to be himself, a point which makes so ironic Madame Grandoni‟s warning to him: „Don‟t give up yourself!‟” which is “the one thing he never really has to surrender and the one thing he dies trying to find” (49). The duality of Hyacinth‟s identity begins with his ambiguous origin – both French and English, both a bastard and a gentlemen, and later both a revolutionalist and an aristocrat. Hyacinth considers the question of his origin important, but he cannot decide: “He didn‟t really know if he were French or were English, or which of the two he should prefer to be” (James 90). “Sometimes he favors one over the other in trying to decide who suffered the more, the murdered father or the condemned mother” (Kimmey

50). This attitude implies to Hyacinth‟s whole life as well: constantly, the hero struggles to define his own identity, but he is not able to decide who he is or who he wants to be.

The question whether or not is he a gentleman is very important for Hyacinth as well; nevertheless, in this case, the answer is clear – the hero considers himself a gentleman

(“whether by heredity or instinct or the coaching of Amanda Pynsent, who raises him with the belief he is the son of a lord”), and he would like the others to treat him this way

(Kimmey 50). Unfortunately, not many people do so (mostly only Miss Pynsent, Lady

Aurora, and sometimes Millicent). Puckett defines Hyacinth as an “excluded middle, he is not a gentleman and also not not a gentleman” (60-65).

However, the duality of character is not only within Hyacinth‟s origin, but also within other aspects of his character. Kimmey brings to attention to Hyacinth‟s inconsistent nature:

He wears shabby clothes, yet appears stylish. His face is pale but exotic. He looks ingenuous, yet is wasted, “amused, amusing,” yet sad […]. And his temperament reveals the same duality. At one time he is quite mild and forgiving, another, surprisingly angry and envious. Even more curious is his desire to know everything and then his repeated confession that he knows nothing and never will. […] He plays the part of a worker in Mr. Crookenden‟s shop, yet forms no friendships with his associates. Instead of going to public houses and drinking beer with them he spends his leisure in the British Museum and the National Gallery. […] He works with his hands; however, his manual labor leads to the development of fine taste, rare discrimination. (qtd. in Kimmey 49-50)

Such duality of Hyacinth‟s identity can be also translated as a duality of his sexual identity

(or rather as a „queer‟ identity), which will be discussed in the following chapter.

In addition, Kimmey notes that Henry James in his Preface describes Hyacinth as a “little presumptuous adventurer,” and argues that the adjectives are significant:

“Little” because of his short figure that invites women to die laughing at him, his humiliating birth as a bastard that causes everyone to pity him, and his sensitive nature that makes him seem too delicate for the world; “presumptuous” because of his longing to belong to the aristocracy of his father and his eagerness to become an artist. (49)

Kimmey also adds that the fact that everybody around Hyacinth is taller points up how “he is alone and mocked and misunderstood” (49). Indeed, Hyacinth Robinson possesses all the qualities of a tragic hero “who deserves our admiration as well as our pity” (Brewer 10).

He is “an outsider, one of the disinherited of society deprived of „freedom and ease, knowledge and power, money, opportunity and satiety‟ and tormented by this fact”

(Kimmey 47-48). Hyacinth is also a “lamb of sacrifice,” and Hoffendahl, his parents, the Princess, Millicent and even Miss Pynsent treat him that way (qtd. in Kimmey 51).

Moreover, Oscar Cargill in his essay “The Princess Casamassima: A Critical Reappraisal” implies that Hyacinth is an excellent example of „fatal Hamletism‟:

Hamlet is, beyond all else, analysis and egoism, skepticism personified... He has no faith in himself, yet is a coxcomb; he knows not what he desires, his life lacks a goal, yet, for all that, he loves life... The Hamlets of this world profit the masses not at all; they bring the masses nothing, they lead the masses nowhere, for they themselves pursue no end... (98, 114)

Even though Hyacinth “is not Prince Hamlet, nor was he meant to be,” Cargill argues that

“James‟s whole treatment of him is marvelously enriched by reference to details in the Hamlet story” (qtd. in Cargill 115).

Furthermore, Brewer points out the connection between Henry James and the hero. Regarding the personal projection into the character, Brewer argues that The

Princess Casamassima is one of James‟s most personal novels:

Though James‟s sympathetic detachment allows him to pursue his thoughtful analytical exploration without that kind of personal projection which distorts a work of art, he is nevertheless more deeply engaged here (as in all his greater novels) that the emphasis on comment and analysis, if left unqualified, may suggest. He is not a bland explorer of other people‟s misery by the device of a superficial personal transposition. His identification with his hero is profound. Though James‟s own life was not a tragedy, Hyacinth‟s deeply wounded sensibility is James‟s, his joys are those of James, his ambiguity towards his project is the ambiguity of James himself towards life, and the frustration of Hyacinth is the expression of a deep sense of exclusion from life in James himself. Hyacinth could only resolve his terrible dilemma by suicide, presenting us with a spectacle of tragic frustration which James himself only escaped by the practice of that art which was, in one sense, itself retreat from the life of action. (16-17)

Brewer also stresses out that the duality of character is “deep in James” and that it is

“the source of much of his ambiguity, his power to see both sides of a question” (17). Also

Kent Puckett discusses, in his essay “Make No Mistake: Getting It Right in The Princess

Casamassima,” a deeper connection between Hyacinth Robinson and Henry James:

After all, to be Hyacinth Robinson is to be Henry James with a difference: “To find this possible adventure interesting I had only to conceive his watching the same public show, the same innumerable appearances, I had watched myself, and of his watching very much as I had watched.” What kills Hyacinth Robinson is that he is too good, that he is Henry James with a difference in a novel written by Henry James, that he is, in other words, a point at which the novel‟s structural logic, its thwarted internal drive toward its best form, comes all too close to the surface. To embody that position is to bear the weight of a world, which is at last to say that Hyacinth had had more to manage than ever one could. (qtd. in Puckett 60-65)

Indeed, these critical points of view bring the character of Hyacinth Robinson into a unique perspective in relation to the author.

On the whole, Hyacinth Robinson might be characterized by these two following quotes: when Millicent tells Hyacinth, “I always knew you were a gentleman,” he replies,

“A queer variety, cara mia” (James 455). In this context, the statement does not imply homosexual meaning; however, it implies the way that Hyacinth sees himself. Because this conversation takes place at the end of Book V, the reader already knows what the hero has been through and what the future brings for him; therefore, this statement works as a kind of Hyacinth looking back at his own life. Despite of his ambiguous heredity, poor conditions and participation in the revolutionary plot, Hyacinth behaves like a gentleman, and feels like he belongs to the aristocracy for taking fancy in arts and distinguished things.

However, he is not a real revolutionary, nor a real aristocrat; he does not truly belong to either class. Hyacinth tries to find the meaning of his life: first, he finds something to die for (the revolutionary cause), but then, he discovers something to live for (the world of beauty and art). Hyacinth is a dual character in every respect – he cannot balance the both sides of him, nor can he choose only one of them. He is lost between two worlds, and

alienated from everyone; there is no one he can actually relate to. In that respect it can be agreed that Hyacinth is a „queer‟ character in the sense of „alienated, different, and uncanny.‟ In order to determine whether is Hyacinth „queer‟ in the sense of „homosexual,‟ the triangle of The Princess Casamassima needs to be examined, Hyacinth‟s relationship with

Paul Muniment in particular.

THE ‘QUEER’ TRIANGLE OF THE PRINCESS CASAMASSIMA

It is characteristic of human nature to be inclined to regard anything which is disagreeable as untrue, and then without much difficulty to find arguments against it.7

Sigmund Freud

As already mentioned before, the queer rivalry plot in The Princess Casamassima is represented by the triangle of Hyacinth, the Princess and Paul Muniment. In the previous chapter, Hyacinth‟s duality of identity has been discussed, and it has been implied that sexual desire is also an important part of one‟s identity, and therefore it should be recognized as well. Even though homoerotic undertones in the novel have been pointed to importance by literary critics such as Joseph Litvak and Wendy Graham, Stevens finds The

Princess Casamassima difficult to read regarding “a misfit between the terms of desire and the terms of identity,” for the novel is “registering the discrepancies resulting from the circulation of same-sex desires in a social space in which such desires have no recognition” (103-104). Another problem with queer reading of The Princess Casamassima is that Hyacinth‟s relationships are not primarily sexual. Brewer argues that “Hyacinth fails to realize the full sexual desire that would be natural to a lively and reasonably well-fed young man” and that “[h]e has a kind of impotence” (20). Furthermore, in none of the two relationships are Hyacinth‟s feelings reciprocated at the same level. Therefore, this novel‟s homoerotic thematic is very subtle, and more difficult to read. Thus, this thesis takes into consideration reading of “queerness” adopted by Haralson that often relies on reading often very subtle signifiers of physical affection and of emotional compatibility and fondness (25).

The Princess Casamassima and Paul Muniment are the most important people who enter the life of Hyacinth Robinson, and, according to Luecke, also the ones who seem

“most responsible for Hyacinth‟s fate” (276). Before Hyacinth meets them, he lives

7 Qtd. in Higgins 12.

an ordinary life of a poor bookbinder in London, but making their acquaintance changes his life dramatically. What is significant for both these relationships is that idealistic

Hyacinth sees what he wants to see, and thus, he has made the Princess and Muniment fit his long-cherished ideals (Luecke 276). The hero is fascinated by them, and idolizes them.

However, when these imaginary constructions are destroyed by the reality, Hyacinth suffers bewilderment and sorrow which climaxes with his suicide (Luecke 275).

First, Hyacinth meets Paul Muniment, a young chemist and a revolutionary, while visiting M. Poupin at home. Their first meeting is quite extraordinary, for Hyacinth “was immensely struck with [the young man], could see he was remarkable, and felt slightly aggrieved that he should be a stranger” (James 89). Clearly, Hyacinth is fascinated with

Muniment since the first moment he sees him, even though he does not know him at all.

The hero cannot help but watching the stranger, and when they make an eye contact, the man smiles “a little, in a way that added to our hero‟s interest” (James 89). Hyacinth also notices the stranger‟s appearance in great detail:

He was tall and fair and good-natured looking, but you couldn‟t tell – or at least Hyacinth couldn‟t – whether he were handsome or ugly, with his large head and square forehead, his thick, straight hair, his heavy mouth and rather vulgar nose, his admirably clear, bright eye, light-coloured and set very deep; for though there was a want of fineness in some of its parts, his face had a marked expression of intelligence and resolution, and denoted a kind of joyous moral health. He was dressed like a workman in his Sunday toggery, having evidently put on his best to call in Lisson Grove, where he was to meet a lady, and wearing in particular a necktie which was both cheap and pretentious, and of which Hyacinth, who noticed everything of that kind, observed the crude, false blue. He had very big shoes – the shoes, almost, of a country labourer – and spoke with a provincial accent, which Hyacinth believed to be that of Lancashire. This didn‟t suggest cleverness, but it didn‟t prevent Hyacinth from perceiving that he was the reverse of stupid; that he probably, indeed, had a tremendous head. Our little hero had a great desire to know superior people, and he interested himself on the spot in this strong, humorous fellow, who had the complexion of a ploughboy and the glance of a commander-in-chief and who might have been (Hyacinth thought) a distinguished young savant in the disguise of an artisan. The disguise would have been very complete, for he had several brown stains on his fingers. (91)

In comparison to Hyacinth, Muniment is a „textbook‟ example of manhood. Although earlier Hyacinth admits that he had moments when “the social question bored him,” after making acquaintance with Muniment, suddenly he wants to know if the revolutionalists have “some plan, something to which one can give one‟s self” (James 86, 92). The narrator‟s statement that the hero “had taken so great a fancy to Muniment” seems thus completely unnecessary (James 94). To the reader, it is more than obvious that Hyacinth has taken such an immediate liking to Paul Muniment, and it is, indeed, peculiar. After spending only “an hour or two” in Muniment‟s presence, he already adores him: “There was something in his face […] which made Hyacinth feel the desire to go with him till he dropped” (James 94, 110). The hero finally meets someone he can look up to, his role model, mentor; and he, almost desperately, wants to make Muniment trust him. Therefore,

Muniment is the main reason why Hyacinth joins the revolutionary movement.

In comparison, Hyacinth‟s first meeting with the Princess is marked with the same aura of amazement and fascination. Hyacinth is “whistled for” by the Princess

Casamassima, “the most remarkable woman in Europe,” while he is at the theatre with

Millicent, because the Princess has become interested in the case of the poor and wishes

Hyacinth to be her guide (James 143, 145). After entering the Princess‟s box, the hero is

“embarrassed, overturned and bewildered”, because he is not announced or introduced.

Nevertheless, he manages to collect himself, and soon he is struck by the Princess who is

“fair, shining, slender, with an effortless majesty,” and whose “beauty had an air of perfection; it astonished and lifted one up, the sight of it seemed a privilege, a reward”

(James 147). Also, the Princess is in a similar position as Hyacinth during his meeting of

Paul: she wants to make Hyacinth trust her, and is willing to give up everything for the cause (James 159).

Interestingly, during Hyacinth‟s first encounter with Paul Muniment at the

Poupins‟, and later with the Princess at the theatre, the hero is never properly introduced

(regarding the social obligations of that period). In both cases, the participants are left to make their acquaintance on their own, in privacy, which suggests the peculiarity and intimacy of their future relationships.

Based on the first meetings, it seems that Muniment, in a way, makes a larger impression on Hyacinth. True, it cannot be denied that the Princess bedazzles the bookbinder, but it appears that it is rather because of her unique beauty and status, which Hyacinth surely have never dreamed of approaching, moreover so suddenly.

On the contrary, Muniment, an „ordinary‟ worker, amazes Hyacinth by his simple presence, and the latter immediately wishes to follow him no matter what. In some novels, such encounter would be probably interpreted as „a love at a first sight.‟ Even though this statement seems to be too farfetched, it is undeniable that Muniment‟s „cause‟ and manly appeal prove rather attractive to Hyacinth.

As Hyacinth‟s relationship with Muniment develops (“his intimacy with Paul

Muniment […] had now grown very great”), the hero is excited about their “a kind of elder-brotherly indulgence,” and has a desire to do whatever Muniment expects him to; according to Mr. Vetch, those two are “as thick as thieves” (James 126, 134, 161). Hyacinth thinks highly of their friendship: he “treated himself to a high unlimited faith in him; he had always dreamed of some grand friendship and this was the best opening he had yet encountered” (James 161). As a reason why Hyacinth develops such a strong attachment to

Muniment, Salzberg suggests that Muniment represents a paternal figure who, by introducing him to a revolutionary movement, gives him “the prestige of a new social role and a sense of mission” – a sense of his life (129-130)8. Luecke also argues that Hyacinth is fatally idealizing Muniment, as well as the Princess: “[he] has made them fit ideals he had long cherished” (276). What Hyacinth refuses to see is sometimes noticed by the others;

8 On the contrary, the Princess represents a maternal figure, and both the Princess and Muniment are responsible for Hyacinth‟s rebirth; later, their parental rejection destroys his reason for being (Salzberg 132).

for instance, Millicent thinks that Muniment is a “dirty young man” who “fills [Hyacinth‟s] head with ideas that‟ll bring [him] to no good” (James 139). In addition, Brewer argues that

Hyacinth Robinson and Paul Muniment together represent a „twinned hero‟ (19).

According to Brewer, Muniment is a complement to the hero himself:

Hyacinth and Muniment are thus the complementary aspects of a total central protagonist. Paul Muniment is only a little older than Hyacinth, and is everything that Hyacinth is not: calm, decisive, undivided in himself, resolute in action, not a gentleman. […] Paul is action and Hyacinth is feeling. Together they make a whole. Yet Paul, at the literal level, for all his friendliness, leads Hyacinth into the path of death. The total „hero‟ is divided against himself. In the psyche, as James seems to feel, action kills feeling. (19)

On the basis of this analysis, it can be assumed that Muniment attracts Hyacinth because he represents Hyacinth‟s „missing piece.‟ Together, they are complete, which is an aspect people are usually looking for in their partners. Also Stevens believes that

Hyacinth‟s strong feelings for Paul Muniment are rather baldly stated, and take the form of an unstable cross-class attraction: Hyacinth‟s indeterminate class status is opposed to Paul‟s working-class solidity, yet Hyacitnh also feels a desire to serve Paul, who is figured as a natural master and ruler, whose majestic stature sets off Hyacinth‟s tininess. (104)

Nevertheless, Hyacinth‟s attachment to Muniment proves to be fatal.

So far, Hyacinth‟s strong feelings for Paul Muniment have been demonstrated; however, can be Hyacinth defined as a „queer‟ in the meaning of „homosexual‟? First,

Hyacinth‟s relationship to women in general needs to be analyzed. At the beginning of the novel, the narrator suggests that Hyacinth is not very interested in women, or rather he would like to have a woman in his life, but none meets his expectations, and he does not want to get married at all:

There were things in his heart and a torment and a hidden passion in his life which he should be glad enough to lay open to some woman. He believed that perhaps this would be the cure ultimately; that in return for something he might drop, syllable by syllable, into some listening ear that would be spoken to him which would make his pain for ever less sharp. But what woman could he trust […]? (James 70, 74-75, emphasis mine)

It seems that Hyacinth would like to share his love and worries with a woman; however, the hidden feelings he is talking about might imply some uncanny feelings, same-sex desire related, that he is scared of and believes that if he gets involved with the right woman, these feelings will disappear. Also when women characters are described through

Hyacinth‟s eyes, the attention is usually drawn to their beauty or character, but they are never really described in a sexual way. Nothing suggests that Hyacinth is longing for the Princess‟s or Millicent‟s body. As already mentioned before, this is rather untypical for a young man, and it proves a kind of impotence. Brewer points out that “[e]ven the beautiful and lusty Millicent, who has a genuine fondness for him, is shown only to arouse desire when Hyacinth has the devastating intuition that his time has come and that the

Princess has dropped him,” and that even though the Princess is fond of him as well, she never feels “any more sexual interest in him than he in her” (20). Salzberg argues that because of this, Hyacinth “never seems capable of assuming a fully masculine role” (135).

On the contrary, there are several moments in the novel when Muniment‟s physical features are pointed upon; for instance, when he looks down at Hyacinth “from above broad shoulders,” his “all so manly and sturdy face” (James 94, 375). Indeed, this enhances the physical contrast between delicate Hyacinth and masculine Muniment, but it also implies that Muniments‟s manly appearance has a certain impact on Hyacinth. This is also represented through their occasional physical contact; for instance, Muniment “passed a strong arm round him, holding him all the way as if for a tacit sign of indebtedness [which] gave Hyacinth pleasure” (James 246, emphasis mine). All these allusions suggest that

Hyacinth is physically attracted to Muniment.

Furthermore, when Miss Pynsent warns him about Millicent‟s intentions, Hyacinth says: “At any rate, it isn‟t from that girl any danger will come to me” (James 117, emphasis mine). This suggests that Hyacinth is aware that there might appear „some kind of a danger‟ in the future. Not having met the Princess yet, he might be referring to his participation in

the revolutionary movement. However, it can also imply that there is „someone‟ who

Hyacinth feels the danger might come from – in this case, it would be Muniment, for he is the one who does Hyacinth have the most passionate feelings for, and thus he is the one who can hurt Hyacinth the most.

As for Hyacinth‟s relationship with the Princess, Brewer suggests that the Princess

“is the magnet and the prize, representing all that the hero yearns for, of art, beauty, love”

(19). The Princess is very fond of Hyacinth, kind and generous; nevertheless, she regards him as “a curious animal,” sometimes she is indifferent, and ignorant to him (James 201).

Hyacinth considers her to be superior to other women; she is like a „real‟ princess from a fairy tale which enchants the hero, but remains out of touch – like a muse of art and beauty, which brings light into Hyacinth‟s life. The Princess and Hyacinth enjoy each other‟s company: “They sat together like very old friends whom long pauses, during which they merely looked at each other with kind, acquainted eyes, couldn‟t make uncomfortable.

[Hyacinth] felt at times almost as if he were married to [her], so many things were taken for granted between them” (James 410-411). The fact that Hyacinth compares their relationship to a marriage implies that the feelings between them are rather respectful and comfortable than passionate. The Princess and Hyacinth create a strong bond, because, in some respect, they are quite similar: both born bastards9, both seeking something in their lives (and therefore joining the revolutionary movement), and, in the end, both deceived by

Paul Muniment. They provide each other a passage to the other world – the Princess introduces Hyacinth to the world of aristocracy while she wants to get to know the world of common people. Hyacinth himself observes that “[h]e might be in love with the Princess

(how could he qualify as yet the bewildered emotion she had produced in him?)” (James

220, emphasis mine). This statement suggests that Hyacinth is inexperienced in the terms

9 The Princess Casamassima, born as Christina Light, is brought forward from the novel Roderick Hudson, and is thus the only major character that James ever revived from an earlier work: “She is the daughter of an Anglo-American shrew and adventuress who forces her, by threat of scandal, into a marriage with the highest bidder [the Prince Casamassima]” (Cargill 108 -109).

of love; however, Hyacinth being the emotional person he is, if he really was in love with the Princess, his attitude would be different – more passionate, more enthusiastic, more expressive.

In comparison, Hyacinth‟s feelings for Muniment are much more intensive.

In addition to the above mentioned arguments, there are more examples of Hyacinth‟s deep affection which verges on romantic feelings and same-sex desire. For instance,

“[when Muniment] talked Hyacinth listened almost to retention of breath, and when he said nothing watched him fixedly, listening to the others through the medium of his candid countenance,” or when he “smiled approval with candour which gave Hyacinth a strange inexpressible heartache” (James 230, 328). Thus, the queer rivalry plot in The Princess

Casamassima is represented by Hyacinth forming strong affections to Paul Muniment, and then finding himself “thwarted by [his] beloved tendency to form heterosexual bonds”

(Stevens 91). The real struggle is not the one between two men for the Princess, but the one between Hyacinth and the Princess for Muniment. There are two important scenes regarding the queer plot discussed as follows.

First, there is the moment, in Chapter 35, when Hyacinth and Muniment sit under a tree and have an intimate conversation about, among other things, the Princess and

Hyacinth‟s anxiety about the upcoming task. When Hyacinth asks Muniment how he would feel if Hyacinth is “strung up on the gallows,” Muniment shifts the subject to the potential of the movement leaving Hyacinth crestfallen:

“I don‟t want comfort, you know,” said Hyacinth, with his eyes on the distant atmospheric mixture that represented London. “What the devil do you want?” Paul asked, still holding him and with perfect good humour. “Well, to get inside of you a little; to know how a chap feels when he‟s going to part with his particular pal.” “To part with him?” this character repeated. “I mean putting it at the worst.” “I should think you would know by yourself – if you‟re going to part with me.”

At this Hyacinth prostrated himself, tumbled over to the grass on his face, which he buried in his hands. He remained in this attitude, saying nothing, a long time; and while he lay there he thought, with a sudden, quick flood of association, of many strange things. Most of all he had the sense of the brilliant charming day; the warm stillness, touched with cries of amusement; the sweetness of loafing there in an interval of work with a chum who was a tremendously fine fellow, even if he didn’t understand the inexpressible. (James 377, emphasis mine)

Then, Hyacinth only reconfirms his attachment to his friend:

He passed his hand into the arm that was so much stronger and longer than his own and said with an imperceptible tremor of voice: “It‟s no use your saying I‟m not to go by what you tell me. I would go by what you tell me anywhere. There‟s no awkwardness to speak of. I don‟t know that I believe exactly what you believe, but I believe in you, and doesn‟t that come to the same thing? (James 380)

Afterwards, Hyacinth decides to dismiss “the sentimental problem,” and James introduces probably the most important passage:

Hyacinth merged himself, resting happy for the time, in the consciousness that Paul was a grand person, that friendship was a purer feeling than love, and that there was an immense deal of affection between them. He didn‟t even observe at that moment that it was preponderantly on his own side. (James 380, emphasis mine)

This scene is significant because it is the only one when Hyacinth expresses his feelings to

Muniment. Though Hyacinth does not put his feelings straight forward, his way of perceiving the moment suggests that they are exceeding a regular friendship even though he might not be fully aware of their true nature. It needs to be mentioned that the novel is set as well as was written in a period when intimate friendships between men were viewed as signs of possible deviance (Haralson 24). Therefore, Hyacinth thinks „within the social norms‟ of that time, and does not realize these feelings fully – his desire for Muniment is muted. Furthermore, the hero does not notice that his affection is unreciprocated.

Nevertheless, Hyacinth‟s statement that friendship is a purer feeling than love is rather peculiar: it might be interpreted either as Hyacinth honoring his friendship with Muniment more than his „love‟ for the Princess, or as, since they mention the Princess in the conversation only

once at the beginning, Hyacinth realizing that Muniment does not share his feelings, and accepting at least Muniment‟s friendship.

Second, there is the moment in Chapter 40 when Hyacinth witnesses Muniment going with the Princess inside of her house. While watching them, a wave of anxiety rushes through him: “he had in short for several instants a very exact revelation of the state of feeling of those who love in the rage of jealousy” and “felt his heart beat insanely, ignobly”

(James 445). Nevertheless, it is not specified who is Hyacinth jealous of. Hyacinth is betrayed both by the Princess (he is not her privileged friend anymore) and Muniment

(Paul chooses a heterosexual bond over a homosexual one). Although afterwards, he still defends Muniment: “He‟s as fine a man as stands!” (James 459). In the end, the queer rivalry plot climaxes with Hyacinth‟s suicide which seems to be “a logical outcome of his feelings of sexual alterity, isolation and alienation” (Stevens 91).

In conclusion, Hyacinth‟s feelings for Muniment should be regarded rather romantic than sexual, even though there are certain moments that suggest physical attraction as well. Hyacinth‟s suicide can be viewed as a result of Hyacinth losing the Princess as a dear friend, and Muniment as a romantic interest to the Princess.

On the whole, the novel provides enough evidence that would constitute Hyacinth as

„queer‟ in the meaning of „homosexual‟ to those who wish to read The Princess Casamassima

„queerly.‟ However, this would not be an accurate conclusion, for Hyacinth does not define himself as „homosexual.‟ Considering the duality of Hyacinth‟s identity and his muted and rather indeterminate sexual desire, the hero remains ambiguous, undefined. To this applies

Stevens‟s argument that even though Hyacinth Robinson feels the pull of same-sex desires, he does not constitute himself as „homosexual,‟ nor does he acknowledge same-sex desires as an important part of his identity (115). Hyacinth Robinson represents the queer in its broad meaning.

CONCLUSION

I don‟t want to be labelled as either a pansy or a heterosexual. Labelling is so self-limiting. We are what we do – not what we say we are.10 Montgomery Clift

Due to Henry James‟s masterly ambiguity, his writings exploring same-sex desire could be published within a culture marked by homosexual prohibition, for there is enough heterosexual punning to keep the story „straight.‟ Therefore, his works have received considerable attention by „queer‟ literary criticism. The main concern of this thesis was to explain the basic concept of „queerness‟ in the writing of Henry James, and demonstrate the „queer‟ reading on the novel The Princess Casamassima whose homosexual undertones are very subtle and indirect.

First, the theoretical part of the thesis concentrated on the concept of queer theory, particularly on the explanation of the term „queer‟ which is nowadays understood in the terms of fluid, uncategorized sexual identity. It was demonstrated that the meaning of „queer‟ developed throughout the years, and that in the times of Henry James „queer‟ did not primarily include „homosexual‟ among its meanings, but it usually referred to a kind of alienation, diversity or perplexity. As an adaptable term, „queer‟ later evolved into an expression marking sexual ambiguity as well. The standard Jamesian queer rivalry plot was introduced as a way of avoiding accusation of homosexuality by the means of ambiguous punning. This possessive struggle dealing with the privileging of heterosexual bonds over homosexual and often precipitating the tragedy is represented in The Princess

Casamassima by the struggle of Hyacinth Robinson with his feelings to the Princess and

Paul Muniment.

The next part of the thesis was devoted to the analysis of Hyacinth Robinson and his relationships with the Princess and Muniment. The duality of his identity, the lack

10 Qtd. in Higgins 1.

of masculinity and his tragic character constitute Hyacinth as a „queer‟ in the sense of „alienated, different, and uncanny.‟ The homoerotic allusions in The Princess Casamassima are portrayed by the hero‟s strong attachment to Paul Muniment which exceeds the terms of a regular friendship. Hyacinth feelings for Muniment can be interpreted as romantic; therefore, the hero is frustrated by Muniment‟s privileging of forming the heterosexual bond with the Princess. However, Hyacinth does not fully realize his sexual desire, and therefore, he is not aware of the true nature of his feelings for Muniment. The homosexual subplot of The Princess Casamassima provides a new outlook on the novel and the reason of Hyacinth‟s suicide.

Indeed, Hyacinth‟s certain qualities and his strong attachment to Muniment might define him as „queer‟ in the sense of „homosexual.‟ However, the hero does not constitute himself as „homosexual‟ – he remains ambiguous, with an undefined identity.

Therefore, even though Hyacinth feels the pull of same-sex desires, he does not acknowledge them as an important part of his identity. Thus, Hyacinth can be defined as

„queer‟ within its modern – broader – meaning.

WORKS CITED

Bellringer, Alan W. Henry James. New York: St. Martin‟s, 1988. Print.

Brewer, Derek. Introduction. The Princess Casamassima. By Henry James. London: Penguin,

1987. 7-30. Print.

Calimach, Andrew, ed. Lovers’ Legends: The Gay Greek Myths. New Rochelle: Haiduk, 2002.

Print.

Cargill, Oscar. “The Princess Casamassima: A Critical Reappraisal.” PMLA 71.1 (1956):

97-117. JSTOR. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.

Dover, Adrian. “The Princess Casamassima.” The Ladder: A Henry James Website. N.p.,

July 2003. Web. 18 Apr. 2011.

Haralson, Eric. Henry James and Queer Modernity. New York: Cambridge UP, 2003. Print.

Higgins, Patrick, ed. A Queer Reader. London: Fourth Estate, 1993. Print.

James, Henry. The Princess Casamassima. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Print.

Jagose, Annamarie. Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: New York UP, 1996. Print.

Kimmey, John L. “The Princess Casamassima and the Quality of Bewilderment.”

Nineteenth-Century Fiction 22.1 (1967): 47-62. JSTOR. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.

Luecke, Jane Marie. “‟The Princess Casamassima‟: Hyacinth's Fallible Consciousness.”

Modern Philology 60.4 (1963): 274-280. JSTOR. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.

“Muniment.” Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, 2011. Web. 20 Apr. 2011.

Puckett, Kent. “Make No Mistake: Getting It Right in The Princess Casamassima.”

Novel 43.1 (2010) 60-65. LION. Web. 12 Nov. 2010.

Salzberg, Joel. “Love, Identity, and Death: James‟ „The Princess Casamassima‟

Reconsidered.” The Bulletin of the Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association 26.4

(1972): 127-135. JSTOR. Web. 11 Oct. 2010.

Soltysik, Agnieszka M. “Recovering „Covering End‟: What Queer Theory Can Do

for „The Turn of the Screw‟.”Victorian Literature and Culture 36.1 (2008) 247-252.

LION. Web. 15 Apr. 2011.

Stevens, Hugh. Henry James and Sexuality. New York: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.

RESUME (in English)

The bachelor‟s diploma thesis deals with the queer plotting in Henry James‟s novel

The Princess Casamassima. The main concern of this thesis is to explain the basic concept of „queerness‟ in the writing of Henry James, and demonstrate the homosexual subtext of The Princess Casamassima which introduces a new outlook on the novel and the reason of Hyacinth‟s suicide.

The Princess Casamassima.

The third chapter is devoted to the analysis of Hyacinth Robinson, the hero of The Princess Casamassima, and attempts to demonstrate the „queer‟ in Hyacinth.

The fourth chapter focuses on the queer rivalry plot in The Princess Casamassima – the triangle of Hyacinth, the Princess and Paul Muniment; and discusses the relationships between these characters in relation to „queerness.‟

The conclusion evaluates the homoerotic allusions of the novel and decides whether or not can be Hyacinth defined as „queer‟ in the sense of homosexual.

RESUMÉ (česky)

Tato bakalářská práce se zabývá zápletkou s ‚queer„ (homosexuální) tématikou v románu Henryho Jamese Princezna Casamassima. Hlavním cílem této práce je vysvětlit základní pojetí ‚queerness„ (homosexuální tématiky) v díle Henryho Jamese a demonstrovat homosexuální podtext v románu Princezna Casamassima, což představuje nový pohled na román i důvod Hyacintovy sebevraždy.

První kapitola práce uvádí základní pohled na ‚queer„ teorii se zaměřením na objasnění pojmu ‚queer„, vývoj jeho významu a způsob, jakým je ‚queer„ interpretováno v literární kritice. Dále práce rozebírá různé přístupy k výkladu díla Henryho Jamese především v souvislosti s homosexuální tématikou.

Druhá kapitola je zaměřena na Jamesovu typickou ‚queer„ zápletku. Představuje koncept této zápletky včetně procesu jejího vývoje. Navíc je zkoumáno několik příkladů z Jamesových děl, zvláště romány Bostoňané a Princezna Casamassima.

Třetí kapitola se věnuje analýze postavy Hyacinta Robinsona, hlavního hrdiny

Princezny Casamassimy, a snaží se ukázat Hyacintovou ‚queer„ stránku.

Čtvrtá kapitola se zaměřuje na rivalskou ‚queer„ zápletku v Princezně Casamassimě – milostný trojúhelník mezi Hyacintem, princeznou Casamassimou a Paulem Munimentem – a rozebírá tyto vztahy v souvislosti s homosexuální tématikou.

V závěru práce je vyhodnocen homosexuální podtext románu i otázka, zda může být Hyacint charakterizován jako ‚queer„ ve smyslu ‚homosexuál„.