Search:
A \ B \ C \ D \ E \ F \ G \ H \ I \ J \ K \ L \ M \ N \ O \ P \ R \ S \ T \ U \ V \ W \Z

My Mother's Rival by Charlotte M. Braeme

C >> Charlotte M. Braeme >> My Mother\'s Rival

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5


EVERYDAY LIFE LIBRARY No. 4
Published by EVERYDAY LIFE, Chicago

[Illustration]


MY MOTHER'S RIVAL

By CHARLOTTE M. BRAEME

Author of "Dora Thorne," "The Belle of Lynn," "The Mystery of Colde
Fell," "Madolin's Lover," "Coralie," Etc., Etc.





CHAPTER I.


I have often wondered if the world ever thinks of what becomes of the
children of great criminals who expiate their crime on the scaffold. Are
they taken away and brought up somewhere in ignorance of who or what
they are? Does some kind relative step forward always bring them up
under another name?

There is great criminal trial, and we hear that the man condemned to
death leaves two daughters and a son--what becomes of them can any one
living say? Who meets them in after life? Has any young man ever been
pointed out to you as the son of Mr. So-and-so, the murderer? Has any
young woman been pointed out to you as his daughter?

It is not long since all England was interested in the trial of a
so-called gentleman for murder. He was found guilty, condemned and
executed. At the time of the trial all the papers spoke of his little
son--a fair-haired little lad, who was as unconscious of all that
happened as a little babe. I have often wondered what became of him.
Does he hear his father's name? Do those with whom he lives know him for
a murderer's son? If he goes wooing any fair-faced girl, will she be
afraid of marrying him lest, in the coming years, she may suffer the
same fate his mother did? Does that same son, when he reads of criminals
and scaffolds, wince, and shudder, and grow sick at heart?

And the daughters, do they grow old and die before their time? Do they
hide themselves under false names in silent places, dreading lest the
world should know them? Does any man ever woo them? Are they ever happy
wives and mothers?

I have thought much on this subject, because I, who write this story,
seem to the world one of the most commonplace people in it, and yet I
have lived, from the time I was a child, in the midst of a tragedy dark
as any that ever saddened this fair land.

No one knows it, no one guesses it. People talk of troubles, of
romances, of sad stories and painful histories before me, but no one
ever guessed that I have known perhaps the saddest of all. My heart
learned to ache as the first lesson it learned in life.

When I think of those unhappy children who go about the world with so
dark a secret locked in their hearts, I think of myself, and what I hold
locked in my heart.

Read for yourself, dear reader, and tell me if you think there have been
many fates in this world harder than mine.

My Name is Laura Tayne, and my home Tayne Abbey, in the grand old
County of Kent. The Taynes were of good family, not very ancient--the
baronetcy is quite a modern one, dating from George the First--but Tayne
Abbey is one of the grandest old buildings in England. Whenever I looked
at it I thought of those beautiful, picturesque, haunted houses that one
sees in Christmas annuals, with Christmas lights shining from the great
windows. I am sorry to say that I know very little of architecture. I
could not describe Tayne Abbey; it was a dark, picturesque, massive
building; the tall towers were covered with ivy, the large windows were
wreathed with flowers of every hue. In some parts of sweet, sunny Kent
the flowers grow as though they were in a huge hothouse; they did so at
Tayne Abbey, for the front stood to the west, and there were years when
it seemed to be nothing but summer.

The great oriel windows--the deep bay windows, large as small rooms--the
carved oaken panels, the finely painted ceilings, the broad corridors,
the beautiful suites of rooms--all so bright, light and lofty--the
old-fashioned porch and the entrance hall, the grand sweep of terraces
one after another, the gardens, the grounds, the park, were all
perfection in their way. To make the picture quite complete, close to
us--joined, indeed, by a subterranean passage, for the existence of
which no one could account--stood the ruins of what had once been the
real Abbey of Tayne--a fine old abbey that, in the time of "bluff King
Hal," had been inhabited by the monks of St. Benedict. They were driven
away, and the abbey and lands were given to the family of De Montford.
The De Montfords did not prosper; after some generations the abbey fell
into ruins, and then they sold the abbey to the Taynes, who had long
wished for it on account of the similarity of names. Our ancestors built
the present mansion called Tayne Abbey; each succeeding Tayne had done
something to beautify it--one had built the magnificent picture gallery,
and had made a magnificent collection of pictures, so magnificent,
indeed, as to rob the Taynes for many years afterward of some part of
their revenue. There they stood still, a fortune in themselves. Another
Tayne had devoted himself to collecting gold and silver plate; in no
other house in England was there such a collection of valuable plate as
in ours. A third Tayne had thought of nothing but his gardens, devoting
his time, thoughts and money to them until they were wonderful to
behold. There were no square and round beds of different flowers,
arranged with mathematical precision; the white lilies stood in great
white sheaves, the eucharis lilies grew tall and stately, the grand
arum lily reared its deep chalice, the lovely lily of the valley shot
its white bells; there were every variety of carnation, of sweet
williams, of sweet peas, of the old-fashioned southernwood and pansy;
there grew crocus, snowdrop and daffadowndilly; great lilac trees, and
the white auricula were there in abundance; there, too, stood a sun-dial
and a fine fountain. It was a garden to please a poet and a painter; but
I have to tell the story of the lives of human beings, and not of
flowers.

The first memory that comes to me is of my beautiful young mother; the
mention of her name brings me the vision of a fair face with hair of
bright gold, and deep, large, blue eyes; of soft silken dresses, from
the folds of which came the sweetest perfume; of fine trailing laces,
fine as the intricate work of a spider's web; of white hands, always
warm and soft, and covered with sparkly rings; of a sweet, low voice,
that was like the cooing of a dove. All these things come back to me as
I write the word "mother." My father, Sir Roland Tayne, was a hearty,
handsome, pleasure-loving man. No one ever saw him dull, or cross, or
angry; he was liberal, generous, and beloved.

He worships my beautiful young mother, and he worshiped me. Every one
said I was the very image of mama. I had the same golden hair and
deep-blue eyes; the same shaped face and hands. I remember that my
mother--that sweet young mother--never walked steadily when she was out
with me. It was as though she could not help dancing like a child.

"Come along, baby darling," she would say to me, "let us get away from
them all, and have a race."

She called me "baby" until I was nearly six--for no other came to take
my place. I heard the servants speak of me, and say what a great heiress
I would be in the years to come, if my father had no sons; but I hardly
understood, and cared still less.

As I grew older I worshipped my beautiful mother, she was so very kind
to me. I always felt that she was so pleased to see me. She never gave
me the impression that I was tiresome, or intruded on her. Sometimes her
toilet would be finished before the dinner-bell rang, then she would
come to the nursery and ask for me. We walked up and down the long
picture gallery, where the dead, and gone Ladies Tayne looked at us from
the walls. No face there was so fair as my mother's. She was more
beautiful than a picture, with her golden hair and fair face, her
sweeping dresses and trailing laces.

The tears rise even now, hot and bitter, to my eyes when I think of
those happy hours--my intense pride in and devoted love for my mother.
How lightly I held her hand, how I kissed her lovely trailing laces.

"Mamma," I said to her, one day, "it is just like coming to heaven when
you call me to walk with you."

"You will know a better heaven some day," she said, laughingly; "but I
have not known it yet."

What was there she did not do? She sang until the music seemed to float
round the room; she drew and painted, and she danced. I have seen no one
like her. They said she was like an angel in the house; so young, so
fair, so sweet--so young, yet, in her wise, sweet way, a mother and
friend to the whole household. Even the maids, when they had done
anything wrong and feared the housekeeper, would ask my mother to
intercede for them.

If she saw a servant who had been crying, she did not rest until she
knew the cause of the tears. If it were a sick mother, then money and
wine would be dispatched. I have heard since that even if their love
affairs went wrong, it was always "my lady" who set them right, and many
a happy marriage took place from Tayne Abbey.

It was just the same with the poor on the estate; she was a friend to
each one, man, woman or child. Her face was like a sunbeam in the
cottages, yet she was by no means unwise or indiscriminate in her
charities. When the people had employment she gave nothing but kind
words; where they were industrious, and could not get work, she helped
them liberally; where they were idle, and would not work, "my lady"
lectured with grave sweetness that was enough to convert the most
hardened sinner.

Every one sought her in distress, her loving sweetness of disposition
was so well known. Great ladies came from London sometimes, looking
world-worn and weary, longing for comfort and sympathy. She gave it so
sweetly, no wonder they had desired it.

It was the same thing on our own estate. If husband and wife quarreled,
it was to my mother they appealed--if a child seemed inclined to go
wrong, the mother at once came to her for advice.

Was it any wonder that I, her only child, loved her so passionately when
every one else found her so sweet, beautiful and good?




CHAPTER II.


Lady Conyngham, who was one of the most beautiful and fashionable women
in London, came to spend a week with my mother. I knew from different
little things that had been said she had some great trouble with her
husband, but of course I did not know in the least what it was about.

As a rule, my mother sent me away on some pretext or other when they had
their long conversations; on this particular day she forgot me. When
Lady Conyngham began to talk I was behind my mother's chair with a book
of fairy tales. The first thing that aroused my attention was a sob from
Lady Conyngham and my mother saying to her:

"It is quite useless, you know, Isabel, to struggle against the
inevitable."

"It is very well for you, Beatrice, to talk in that fashion, you who
have never had a trouble in your own life; now, have you?"

"No," replied my beautiful mother, "not a real trouble, thank Heaven,"
and she clasped her white hands in gratitude.

"Then you cannot judge. You mean well, I know, when you advise me to be
patient; but, Beatrice, suppose it were your husband, what should you
do?"

"I should do just what I am advising you to do; I should be patient,
Isabel."

"You would. If Sir Roland neglected you, slighted you, treated you with
indifference, harder to bear than hate, if he persisted in thrusting the
presence of your rivals on you, what should you do?"

"Do you mean to ask me, really and truly, what I should do in that
case?" asked my dear mother. "Oh, Isabel, I can soon tell you that; I
should die."

"Die--nonsense!" cried Lady Conyngham. "What is the use of dying?--the
very thing they want. I will not die;" but my mother had laid her fair
head back on the velvet pillow, and her eyes lingered on the clear blue
sky. Was she looking for the angels who must have heard her voice?

"I am not as strong as you, Isabel," she said, gently, "and I love Sir
Roland with my whole heart."

"I loved my husband with my whole heart," sobbed the beautiful woman,
"and I have done nothing in this world to deserve what I have suffered.
I loved him with a pure, great affection--what became of it? Three days
after we were married I saw him myself patting one of the maids--a
good-looking one, you may be sure--on the cheek."

"Perhaps he meant no harm," said my mother, consolingly; "you know that
gentlemen do not attach so much importance as we do to these little
trifles."

"You try, Beatrice, how you would like it; you have been married ten
years, and even at this date you would not like Sir Roland to do such a
thing?"

"I am sure I should not; but then, you know, there are men and men. Sir
Roland is graver in character than Lord Conyngham. What would mean much
from one, means little from the other."

So, with sweet, wise words, she strove to console and comfort this poor
lady, who had evidently been stricken to the heart in some way or
another. I often thought of my mother's words, "I should die," long
after Lady Conyngham had made some kind of reconciliation with her
husband, and had gone back to him. I thought of my mother's face, as she
leaned back to watch the sky, crying out, "I should die."

I knew that I ought not to have sat still; my conscience reproached me
very much; but when I did get up to go away mamma did not notice me.
From that time it was wonderful how much I thought of "husbands." They
were to me the most mysterious people in the world--a race quite apart
from other men. When they spoke of any one as being Mrs. or Lady S----'s
husband, to me he became a wicked man at once. Some were good; some bad.
Some seemed to trust their wives; others to be rather frightened than
otherwise at them. I studied intently all the different varieties of
husbands. I heard my father laugh often, and say:

"Bless the child, how intently she looks and listens."

He little knew that I was trying to find out for myself, and by my
mother's wit, which were good husbands and which were bad. I did not
like to address any questions to my parents on the subject, lest they
should wonder why the subject interested me.

Once, when I was with my mother--we were walking up and down the picture
gallery--I did venture to ask her:

"Mamma, what makes husbands bad? Why do they make their wives cry?"

How my beautiful mother looked at me. There were laughter, fun and pain
in her eyes altogether.

"What makes my darling ask such a question?" she replied. "I am very
surprised: it is such a strange question for my Laura to ask! I hope all
husbands are good."

"No, not all," I hastened to answer; "Lady Conyngham's was not--I heard
her say so."

"I am sorry you heard it--you must not repeat it; you are much too young
to talk about husbands, Laura."

Of course I did not mention then again--equally of course I did not
think less of this mysterious kind of beings.

My beautiful mother was very happy with her husband, Sir Roland--she
loved him exceedingly, and he was devoted to her. The other ladies said
he spoiled her, he was so attentive, so devoted, so kind. I have met
with every variety of species which puzzled my childish mind, but none
so perfect as he was then.

"You do not know what trouble means, dear Lady Tayne." "With a husband
like yours, life is all sunshine." "You have been spoiled with
kindness!"

All these exclamations I used to hear, until I became quite sure that my
father was the best husband in the world.

On my tenth birthday my father would have a large ball, and he insisted
that I should be present at it. My mother half hesitated, but he
insisted; so, thanks to him, I have one perfectly happy memory. I
thought far more of my beautiful mother than myself. I stood in the
hall, watching her as she came down the great staircase, great waves of
shining silk and trailing laces making her train, diamonds gleaming in
her golden hair, her white neck and arms bare; so tall, slender and
stately, like the picture of some lovely young queen. Papa and I stood
together watching her.

"Let me kiss her first!" I cried, running to her.

"Mind the lace and diamonds, Laura," he cried.

"Never mind either, my darling," she said laughingly. "One kiss from you
is worth more than all."

Sir Roland kissed her and stood looking at her with admiring eyes.

"Do you know, Beatrice," he said, "that you grow younger and more
beautiful? It is dead swindle! I shall be a gray-bearded old man by the
time you have grown quite young again."

My sweet mother! she evidently enjoyed his praise; she touched his face
with her pretty hand.

"Old or young, Roland," she said, lovingly, "my heart will never change
in its great love for you."

They did not know how intensely I appreciated this little scene.

"Here is a good husband," I said to myself, like the impertinent little
critic I was; "this is not like Lady Conyngham's husband!"--the truth
being that I could never get that unfortunate man quite out of my mind.

That night, certainly the very happiest of my life, my father danced
with me. Heaven help me! I can remember my pride as I stood by the tall,
stalwart figure, just able with the tips of my fingers to touch his arm.
Mamma danced with me, too, and my happiness was complete. I watched all
the ladies there, young and old; there was not one so fair as my mother.
Closing my eyes, so tired of this world's sunlight, I see her again as I
saw her that night, queen of the brilliant throng, the fairest woman
present. I see her with her loving heart full of emotion kissing my
father. I see her in the ballroom, the most graceful figure present.

I remember how every half-hour she came to speak to me and see if I were
happy, and once, when she thought I was warm and tired, she took my hand
and led me into the beautiful cool conservatory, where we sat and talked
until I had grown cool again. I see her talking with queenly grace and
laughing eyes, no one forgotten or neglected, partners found for the
least attractive girls, while the sunshine of her presence was
everywhere. She led a cotillion. I remember seeing her stand waiting the
signal, the very type of grace and beauty.

Oh, my darling, if I were with you! As I saw her then I never saw her
more.

I was present the next morning when my father and mother discussed the
ball.

"How well you looked, Beatrice," said my father.

"How well I felt," she replied. "I am quite sure, Roland, that I enjoy
dancing far better now than I did before I was married. I should like
dancing parties a little oftener; they are much more amusing than your
solemn dinner parties."

But, ah me! the dancing feet were soon to be stilled; all the rest of
that summer there was something mysterious--every one was so solicitous
about my mother--they seemed to think of nothing but her health. She was
gay and charming herself, laughing at the fuss, anxiety and care. Sir
Roland was devoted to her; he never left her. She took no more rides now
on her favorite Sir Tristam, my father drove her carefully in the
carriage; there were no more balls or parties; "extreme quiet and
repose" seemed to be the keynote. Mamma was always "resting."

"She cannot want rest," I exclaimed, "when she does nothing to tire her!
Oh, let me go to her!" for some foolish person had started a theory that
I tired her. I who worshiped her, who would have kept silence for a year
rather than have disturbed her for one moment! I appealed to Sir Roland,
and he consulted her; the result was that I was permitted to steal into
her boudoir, and, to my childish mind, it seemed that during those days
my mother's heart and mine grew together.




CHAPTER III.


It was a quiet Christmas at Tayne Abbey; we had no visitors, for my
mother required the greatest care; but she did not forget one person in
the house, or one on the estate. Sir Roland laughed when he saw the
preparations--the beef, the blankets, the clothing of all kinds, the
innumerable presents, for she had remembered every one's wants and
needs. Sir Roland laughed.

"My dearest Beatrice," he said; "this will cost far more than a houseful
of guests."

"Never mind the cost," she said; "it will bring down a blessing on us."

A quiet, beautiful Christmas. My father was in the highest of spirits,
and would have the house decorated with holly and mistletoe. He went out
to a few parties, but he was always unwilling to leave my mother, though
she wished him to go; then, when we were quite alone, the wind wailing,
the snow falling and beating up against the windows, she would ask me to
read to her the beautiful gospel story of the star in the East and the
child born in the stable because there was no room for Him in the inn. I
read it to her over and over again; then we used to talk about it. She
loved to picture the streets of Bethlehem, the star in the East, the
herald angels, the shepherds who came from over the hills.

She was never tired, and I wondered why that story, more than any other,
interested her so greatly.

I knew afterward.

It was February; the snowdrops were peeping above the ground; the yellow
and purple crocuses appeared; in the clear, cold air there was a faint
perfume of violets, and the terrible sorrow of our lives began.

I had gone to bed very happy one night, for my fair young mother had
been most loving to me. She had been lying on the sofa in her boudoir
all day; her luncheon and dinner had been carried to her, and, as a
great privilege, I had been permitted to share them with her. She looked
very pale and beautiful, and she was most loving to me. When I bade her
good-night she held me in her arms as though she would never let me go.
What words she whispered to me--so loving that I have never forgotten
them, and never shall while my memory lives. Twice she called me back
when I had reached the door to say good-night again--twice I went back
and kissed the pale, sweet face. It was very pale the last time, and I
was frightened.

"Mamma, darling," I asked, "are you very ill?"

"Why, Laura?" she questioned.

"Because you look so pale, and you are always lying here. You never move
about or dance and play as you used to do."

"But I will, Laura. You will see, the very first game we play at hare
and hounds I shall beat you. God bless my darling child!"

That night seemed to me very strange. There was no rest and no silence.
What could every one be doing? I heard the opening and closing of the
doors, the sound of many footsteps in the dead of the night. I heard the
galloping of horses and a carriage stop at the hall door. I thank Heaven
even now that I did not connect these things with the illness of my
mother. Such a strange night! and when morning light came there was no
nurse to dress me. I lay wondering until, at last, Emma came, her face
pale, her eyes swollen with tears.

"What has been the matter?" I cried. "Oh, Emma, what a strange night it
has been! I have heard all kinds of noises. Has anything been wrong?"

"No, my dear," she replied.

But I felt quite sure she was keeping something from me.

"Emma, you should not tell stories!" I cried, so vehemently that she was
startled. "You know how Heaven punished Ananias and Saphira for their
wickedness."

"Hush, missie!" said my good nurse; "I have told no stories--I speak the
truth; there is nothing wrong. See, I want you to have your breakfast
here in your room this morning, and then Sir Roland wants you."

"How is mamma?" I asked.

"You shall go to her afterward," was the evasive reply.

"But how is she?" I persisted. "You do not say how she is."

"I am not my lady's maid, missie," she replied.

And then my heart sank. She would not tell a story, and she could not
say my mother was better.

My breakfast was brought, but I could not eat it; my heart was heavy,
and then Emma said it was time I went to papa.

When the door of my room was opened the silence that reigned over the
house struck me with a deadly chill. What was it? There was no sound--no
bells ringing, no footsteps, no cheery voices; even the birds that mamma
loved were all quiet--the very silence and quiet of death seemed to hang
over the place. I could feel the blood grow cold in my veins, my heart
grow heavy as lead, my face grew pale as death, but I would say no more
of my fears to Emma.

She opened the library door, where she said Sir Roland was waiting for
me, and left me there.

I went in and sprang to my father's arms--my own clasped together round
his neck--looking eagerly in his face.

Ah, me! how changed it was from the handsome, laughing face of
yesterday--so haggard, so worn, so white, and I could see that he had
shed many tears.

"My little Laura--my darling," he said, "I have something to tell
you--something which has happened since you bade dear mamma good-night."

"Oh, not to her!" I cried, in an agony of tears; "not to her!"

"Mamma is living," he said, and I broke from his arms. I flung myself in
an agony of grief on the ground. Those words, "Mamma is living," seemed
to me only little less terrible than those I had dreaded to hear--

"Mamma is dead."

Ah, my darling, it would have been better had you died then.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
Copyright (c) 2007. bestextbooks.com. All rights reserved.

Over the moon
Latest news and features from guardian.co.uk, the world's leading liberal voice

Under the Sun: The Letters of Bruce Chatwin

We all want to be happy, we want our children to be happy, and there are countless books advising us how to achieve happiness. But is this really what we should be aiming for?

"A fly bothers me, I kill it: you kill what bothers you. If I had not killed the fly, it would have been out of pure liberalism: I am liberal in order not to be a killer."

Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes

'He was not to be described as a happy person," Diana Trilling wrote in a memoir about her husband, the critic Lionel Trilling. "Indeed, he thought poorly of happiness and of people who claimed to be happy or desired happiness above other gratifications in life . . . seriousness was the desirable condition of man." It is easy to make all sorts of assumptions about why an unhappy person would not value happiness; and indeed why seriousness might be seen as an alternative to happiness; or just to say that it was seriousness that made Trilling happy. One of the ways in which happiness is made to seem like an inclusive ideal – the ways it charms us – is by our asserting that by definition the things that matter most to us must make us happy, that that is how we know they are good. It's as though one word could do the work of the moral imagination.

Or can we just say that if happiness is one's aspiration, then learning about the history of the slave trade, say, or watching the news, or indeed ageing are all to be avoided. And yet learning about the terrible things people can do to each other, and the history of the terrible things people have done to each other, is important – we can't imagine a life without it – and gives some people a great deal of pleasure; pleasure, as psychoanalysts might say, of various kinds. Anyone who has or knows children, or remembers being a child, will know how happy it can make them tormenting their siblings. And so if we value happiness we can't help but wonder what morality it entails, what kind of morality it might involve us in.

It is not surprising, in other words, that happiness has always had rather a mixed reception. No one in their right minds we might think, especially now, would be promoting unhappiness; and yet the promotion, the preferring of happiness – the assumption of a right to happiness – brings with it a lot of things we might not like. And the desire for happiness may reveal things about ourselves that we like even less. "A people who conceive life to be the pursuit of happiness must be chronically unhappy," the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins wrote.

What are we going to have to do, what are we going to have to become, what are we going to have to renounce or ignore if we want to be happy? Or if we are to propose happiness, or its pursuit, as some kind of right? We tend to make rights of things we assume to be in short supply, things perpetually under threat. Wherever there is scarcity now human rights are asserted; and the assertion of rights is reactive to a sense of scarcity deemed to be needless. Or, to put it slightly differently, calling something a right can be a way of rhetorically enforcing an important wish, a way of making a wish sound important.

I want to begin with three fairly obvious propositions that are also misgivings about the right to happiness or its pursuit. And I'd like to suggest that the right to frustration may be more useful and interesting – more enlivening – than the right to happiness. That's to say I want to waylay the common, all-too-plausible idea that the solution to frustration is satisfaction, or that happiness is the answer to unhappiness, or that if we get rid of the bad things, the good things will start happening. Happiness and the right to pursue it are sometimes wildly unrealistic as ideals; and, because wildly unrealistic, unconsciously self-destructive.

Because happiness is not always the kind of thing that can be pursued, we should view it, more often than not, as a lucky side effect but not a calculable or calculated end. Making it such an end all too easily brings out the worst in us. If this is a version, to rewrite John Lennon's famous line, of "happiness is what happens to you when you are doing something else", it also suggests that scarcity is integral to a sense of reality; that we should be thinking of what Philip Larkin in "Born Yesterday" called "a skilled, / Vigilant, flexible, / Unemphasised, enthralled / Catching of happiness" rather than the engineering of it.

Our relation to happiness often betrays an unconscious desire for disillusionment. The wanting of it and the having of it can seem like two quite different things. And this is what makes wishing so interesting; because wishing is always too knowing. When we wish we are too convinced of our pleasures, too certain that we know what we want. The belief that we can arrange our happiness – as though happiness were akin to justice, which we can work towards – may be to misrecognise the very thing that concerns us.

My three fairly obvious propositions are: first, in Freud's formulation from Civilisation and its Discontents, "happiness is something essentially subjective" (subjective I take it, in the sense of being not only personal but idiosyncratic). We can be surprised by what makes us happy, and it will not necessarily be something that makes other people happy. This has significant consequences not least in the area of our lives that is sometimes conducive to happiness, sexuality. And this makes happiness as a social or communal pursuit complicated. We have only to imagine what it would be for someone to propose that we had a right to sexual satisfaction to imagine both how we might contrive this and what terrible things might be done in its name.

Second, bad things can make us happy – and by bad things I mean things consensually agreed to be unacceptable. It clearly makes some people happy to live in a world without Jews, or homosexuals, or immigrants, and so on. There are also what we might call genuinely bad things, like seriously harming people and other animals, that gives some people the pleasure they most crave. I remember a very unhappy boy of 10 telling me in a psychotherapy session that he was only happy when he was cutting the feet off rats that he had caught. He said it made him feel "really awake", that it was like "turning on the light in your favourite room in the world". Cruelty and humiliation make some people happy, perhaps lots of people happy some of the time; and this issue is not dealt with merely by saying that they are not really happy or that they are in some way perverse or sick. We tend to pathologise the forms of happiness we cannot bear. If we are to have a right to happiness or to its pursuit – two different things – we must then acknowledge the full range of things that make people happy. This means taking them at their word. Cruelty can make people happy. And we might then want to think about what problem, or rather problems, happiness is deemed to be the solution to. It is not, for example, incidental to our predicament that so many of our pleasures are, or are felt to be, forbidden (this is what Freud's account of the Oedipus complex is a way of thinking about). So put briefly – as every child and therefore every adult knows – being bad can make you happy. Happiness is subjective, it takes many forms, and one of its forms is immorality.

Last but not least – though the least exciting – is the third point: some people like being unhappy. Indeed for some people their lives can be construed as the pursuit of unhappiness. It is astounding the lengths to which some people will go to be unhappy, to contrive their own misery, as though happiness itself were a phobic object and held terrors. And we don't talk of the right to be unhappy, when we should. Unhappiness can, after all, among many other things, be the registration of injustice or loss. At its best, a culture committed to the pursuit of happiness might be committed, say, to the diminishing of injustice; but at its worst, the culture of happiness may proscribe a whole range of feelings and perceptions.

It is sometimes said that psychoanalysis is one of the last places in the culture where people are allowed to be unhappy. And clearly psychoanalysis protects, if it does not actually foster, a person's right to be unhappy. The subjectivity of happiness, what it is that the individual really loves and gets pleasure from, the immorality of pleasures and the lure of transgression, happiness as a perversion, the fear of pleasure and the masochistic solution – all this is the material of psychoanalysis, and not only of psychoanalysis.

Yet, historically, psychoanalysis is the inheritor of a set of political propositions it would seem to be at odds with; or at least at a very odd angle to. If Freud and happiness doesn't sound like a very promising subject, Freud and rights seems even less so (there's only one reference to the rights of man in Freud's work). Rights, like class, have never really been the thing for psychoanalysis; omissions, one would think, of some significance. Don't have much confidence in the so-called rights of man, Freud seems to say in his New Introductory Lectures; they are no match for the ferocity of inner morality – the super-ego, or "conscience". The whole business of rights only turns up when the individual, the melancholic individual, is briefly released from his internal regime ("For after a certain number of months the whole moral fuss is over, the criticism of the superego is silent, the ego is rehabilitated and again enjoys all the rights of man till the next attack.") Morality, at least in these patients, is periodic, as are the rights of man, the gift, as it were of a higher power.

"Our normal sense of guilt," Freud writes, "is the expression of the tension between the ego and the super-ego". This translates as: our happiness depends on the distance between who we are and who we should be according to the dictates of our internalised morality. We are mostly unhappy because we are rarely as we should be. When the internal authorities are so implacable and sadistic — over-severe, abusive, humiliating, as Freud writes — what are the possibilities for happiness?

The right to happiness, or to its pursuit, would mean the right to a generous super-ego, the right to a super-ego that was on the side of one's pleasure: one that promoted the view that feeling alive was more important than being right or good. It is one of Freud's more horrifying ironies that the pursuit of pleasure incites, calls up, the super-ego. And, of course, when and if pleasure is forbidden its pursuit requires punishment. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Virtue has to be its own reward. To pursue pleasure is to be pursued by punishment. There is no one more moralistic, more coercive, than a hedonist.

As the right to happiness or its pursuit is my subject, and I am by training a child psychotherapist, all this is by way of a lengthy preamble to putting together the famous sentence from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence with something from the paediatrician and psychoanalyst DW Winnicott's story about child development. I want to ask what, if anything, the right to happiness or its pursuit has to do with the child's development; whether Jefferson's founding declaration has anything to do with the declaration of independence that is the child's personal development.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Some of us might not believe in the Creator part now, and some of us might find more and more difficult the idea that people are born equal when the conditions in which they are born are manifestly so unequal; and most of us would want to assume that by "men" Jefferson meant "people". And yet, as many people have noted, the pursuit of happiness – something not mentioned in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, nor in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – seems peculiarly salient; it is the only one of the things listed that is a pursuit.

What exactly might it mean to have an "unalienable right" to "the pursuit of happiness", given that it is fairly obvious that the pursuit of happiness is so morally equivocal – could be, among other things, a threat to the society that promoted it? At first sight it seems to be a pretty good idea; if we are convinced of anything now we are convinced that we are pleasure-seeking creatures, who want to minimise the pain and frustration of our lives. Or at least a "we" could be consolidated around these beliefs. We are the creatures who, possibly unlike any other animal, pursue happiness. But the pursuit of happiness, like the pursuit of liberty – the utopian political projects of the 20th century – has legitimated some of the worst crimes of contemporary history across the political spectrum.

In Jefferson's Declaration, the art critic Dave Hickey has noted, "Happiness is not assured, but its pursuit is protected . . . the government will act to ensure our safety, and it will stand back as we act on our own behalf in the 'pursuit of happiness'. When that pursuit putatively threatens our safety the government invariably steps in. Safety trumps happiness, the government always wins." It is not too much of a stretch here to see, in this account, the government as the parents, and the citizens as adolescent children; the governmental parents protect the pursuit of happiness, but prioritise safety. The developing child pursues his own happiness under the rules and conditions provided by the adults. Children cannot bring themselves up, and children cannot bring up children (in Lord of the Flies the question recurs: "are there any adults?").

If it is said, or written, that we have a right to be happy or to pursue happiness, it is assumed that happiness is something we are capable of, something that is available, if certain obstacles are removed. If liberty is there when tyranny is taken away, happiness is there when whatever makes us unhappy is removed. From a pragmatic point of view the art of a good life involves removing the obstacles to happiness; the picture, if we visualise it, is of something looked for, something looked forward to, and of there being something in the way. And this something in the way could be called an unavailable mother, a prohibitive father, competing sibling, not having enough brains or beauty, or charm, or money, or education, or luck. We would get closer to our happiness were these things acquired; and a reality sense would be something to do with acknowledging which of these things cannot be acquired. It is all about, in short, our relation to obstacles; our distinguishing the intractable from the changeable, what we have to acknowledge from what we can influence; whether our desire is forbidden or not – whether we want a cream cake or another man's wife. It is, in pragmatic terms, about knowing what is possible. And everybody, it seems, is shadowed by an imaginary other person, a lucky counterpart, who gets all the happiness going; Lacan writes of "the jealousy born in a subject in his relation to an other, insofar as this other is held to enjoy a certain form of jouissance or superabundant vitality". This other person presumably enjoys his happiness, his super-abundant vitality with no conflict, with no thought of safety, with no consideration of the rules and conditions required by the good of the rest.

A right to the pursuit of happiness must be a right to remove the obstacles to happiness. This, at least, is the logic of the case. The man called the happiness tsar, Lord Layard, says we now know what makes children happy (the book he co-authored last year is called A Good Childhood). What, then, are the obstacles to the child's happiness, and why can't we set about trying to remove them? And some of them we can remove. But what if the so-called obstacles to happiness are, or sometimes are, among the things that matter most to us? If, say, we love both luxury and justice? What if two mutually exclusive things make us happy, and one has to be abrogated? And what if some obstacles are immovable, untransformable into anything other than obstacles?

There is something about the sexual drive, Freud suggested, that makes it intrinsically unsatisfiable. There are not infinite resources of food, of energy, of medicine. It is, for example, true, as every mother knows, that the mother cannot give the child everything that he wants, and that if she could it wouldn't be what he wanted. That everyone feels left out of something. It is misleading to think that one's parents have been the obstacle to one's happiness, even if they have radically thwarted it. Indeed we might end up thinking that a right to irresolvable conflict might be the most realistic right we could come up with. That the attempt to resolve at least some conflicts was a distraction from finding better ways of living them; that the right to pursue happiness has seduced us into pursuing happiness when we could have been doing something better.

If the alternative to happiness is not, in the binary way, unhappiness; and if happiness has become so insidious, so hypnotic a single end for a good life, why have we wanted this strange narrowing of our intent? What have we lost, or forgotten, or ignored, or paid insufficient attention to, or protected ourselves from by wanting happiness? Happiness, it would seem, is the most plausible of our aims in life. But what psychoanalysis can chip in with here is that we are at our most defensive when we are at our most plausible.

One of the other things we most want is to be able to feel frustrated; to register what we feel deprived of. Frustration issues in many things only one of which is happiness; and happiness can be, at its worst, a pre-emptive strike against frustration, a refuge from it rather than any kind of productive, unpredictable transformation of it. If we want to talk of a right to pursue happiness there needs to be a prior right, as it were, to feel frustration; to be able to bear and to bear with a sense of what is lacking in one's life. And not simply because frustration makes satisfaction possible in the way that hunger can make a meal delicious. But because frustration and satisfaction do not only or always have a logical, a causal, a pragmatic relationship with one another. Or to put it rather more obviously, what we are lacking when we are unhappy is not always happiness, any more than what an alcoholic is lacking is a drink. And proposing a right to the pursuit of happiness may seduce us, by a kind of word-magic, into thinking that happiness is just the thing.

It is of interest that when Winnicott writes about deprivation in children he too talks about rights. "Let us consider the meaning of the anti-social act," he writes in a paper called "The Deprived Child": "for instance, stealing. When a child steals what is sought . . . is not the object stolen; what is sought is the person, the mother from whom the child has the right to steal because she is the mother. In fact every infant at the start can truly claim the right to steal from the mother because the infant invented the mother, thought her up, created her out of an innate capacity to love."

For Winnicott, the child makes the mother he needs and gradually, through disillusionment and hatred, disentangles her, to some extent, from the mother she happens to be. But it is "the mother from whom the child has the right to steal because she is the mother" that I want to consider. Because the thing stolen is not quite or even nearly the thing wanted – which is not a thing, but a mother – it can never satisfy. What we have is a picture of the right to pursue happiness getting stuck, something I think it is prone to do; as though there is something about the pursuit of happiness that sponsors and endorses addiction. In this sense, consumer capitalism is a system tailor-made for deprived children.

The theft requires communicable translation; it requires, as it were, someone to be able to say, or otherwise communicate what it is that is really being pursued. In Winnicott's declaration the child has a right to the pursuit of a mother to get what he needs for his development. He is entitled to a mother; she belongs to him in the sense that his own development belongs to him. A good-enough mother or parents might give you the wherewithal for your pursuit of happiness; they might have backed your desire, helped you to believe in and not only be fearful of your pleasures. But it is more complicated than this. Lives are not the kind of things that can be guaranteed by mothers. And this is where the idea of a right to pursue one's own happiness becomes more interesting.

Do children want to be happy? And if they don't want to be happy what else might they want to be? This would seem to be of some importance because they are growing up in a world in which their parents mostly want them to be happy, or at least don't like them being unhappy, admittedly for a variety of different reasons. And by a world I mean the particular cultures for whom happiness has become the preferred object, or the preferred fetish. Children are supposed to be anti-depressants for their parents.

Happiness is something parents often demand of their children; we, as we say, want our children to be happy; we were once children who's parents wanted us to be happy. And that means the whole spectrum, from not being a worry to them, not making their lives more difficult, being curative of their woes, to the pleasure our parents could take in our pleasure and our wellbeing. We are more dependent on our children than they are on us; and we are dependent, in brief, on their happiness. What makes the child happy is not going to be unlinked to what makes the parents happy. Clearly if a parent lives as if their child has a right to happiness, or a right to its pursuit, and that they are the guardians of this right, they are going to have a difficult, an even more difficult, task on their hands. Lovers often feel that they should be making each other happy when they are in fact making themselves a problem to each other.

So by way of conclusion I want to suggest that a right to the pursuit of happiness is asserted when a capacity for absorption has been sabotaged, when there is a loss of confidence in people's passions. Happiness becomes important when the possibility for absorption is under threat. That the child does not want to be happy – or perhaps, more exactly, the child doesn't want only to be happy – the child wants first to be safe, and then to be absorbed. There are, for example, only two reasons for children to go to school – apart, that is, from acquiring the werewithal to earn a living: to make friends, and to see if they can find something of absorbing interest to themselves.

There is an interesting moment in Lord of the Flies when Henry, one of the "littluns", wanders away from the main group of children. "He went down to the beach and busied himself at the water's edge." William Golding writes: "There were creatures that lived in this last fling of the sea, tiny transparencies that came questing in with the water over the hot, dry sand. With impalpable organs of sense they examined this new field. Perhaps food had appeared where the last incursion there had been none . . . This was fascinating to Henry. He poked about with a bit of stick, that itself was wave-worn and whitened and a vagrant, and tried to control the motions of the scavengers . . . He became absorbed beyond mere happiness as he felt himself exercising control over living things."

The adult narrator can see Henry as in some way identified with these rudimentary scavengers; and the narrator intimates that without adults the children feel how much is out of control or under-controlled. And then there is the remarkable sentence: "He became absorbed beyond mere happiness as he felt himself exercising control over living things." He feels himself exercising control, but he is not, and his absorption is beyond, in excess of, mere happiness. Something else is wanted more than happiness by Henry, and it seems to be the exercise of control over living things, one of which is himself. It would be easy, and partly true, to say that what Henry is absorbed by here, what is beyond mere happiness, is power, control over living things. But Golding is clear about two things; it is an illusion of power – Golding refers to Henry having "the illusion of mastery" – and it is also the absorption itself that is beyond mere happiness. "He became absorbed beyond mere happiness." It is an illusion that absorbs him beyond happiness; in other words, he is playing. Absorption is not in and of itself a moral good; in the novel the tyrannical, sadistic Jack absorbs the attention of a lot of the children who do his bidding. But in proposing, in the context of the novel, that there is a beyond to mere happiness, something else or further that is wanted; and that indeed happiness may be a poor substitute for something else, that happiness may be something that can get in the way of whatever is beyond it; by proposing this Golding is saying something about what can override the pursuit of happiness, and what may be lost in its pursuit. For better and for worse, being able to feel our frustration is the precondition for becoming absorbed. When this is impossible the pursuit of happiness tends to take over. The right to pursue happiness may be, at its worst, the right not to feel frustrated. And if frustration is not allowed to take its course, to take its time, there is no absorption, only refuges from unhappiness. The child is fobbed off with happiness when what she really wants is to get her appetite back. The right to the pursuit of happiness can be a cover story for the wish to hide.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

What Ever Happened to Moderism? by Gabriel Josipovici

Bruce Chatwin's letters are as much a performance as anything else he wrote, says Blake Morrison

Does anyone read Bruce Chatwin these days? His friend and biographer Nicholas Shakespeare reports a conversation in Australia in 2001, when a young journalist asked: "Who was Bruce Chatwin?" And another generation has since emerged who are even less likely to have heard of him.

In the late 80s, such a fate would have been unthinkable. Blond, good-looking and charismatic, Chatwin was at the height of his reputation. The Songlines (17 years in the making) topped the bestseller list in 1987; Utz (completed in a few months) was shortlisted for the Booker prize in 1988. His mysterious death the following year, at 48, only added to the allure. Tom Maschler, who also published Salman Rushdie, Ian McEwan and Martin Amis, thought him a greater talent than any of them.

Why has Chatwin's star faded so quickly? Allegations of coldness, snobbery, humourlessness and fabrication haven't helped. Nor have the disavowals of those, like Barry Humphries, who were once his friends. Shakespeare is baffled, nevertheless, that a man whose work was a precursor of the internet – "a connective superhighway without boundaries" – should have fallen into neglect. His hope is that this collection of letters – put together with Chatwin's widow, Elizabeth – can turn things round.

"Chatwin's correspondence reveals much more about himself than he was prepared to expose in his books," he says. Elizabeth agrees: "The letters are the only unreworked writing of his." An unguarded writer certainly ought to be a more knowable writer. But Chatwin enjoyed being an enigma ("I don't believe in coming clean"), and his letters are as much a performance as anything else he wrote, just less polished. When he does let the mask slip to reveal, for example, how eager a socialite he was ("lunch with Noël Coward on Friday", "Escorting Mrs Onassis to the opera next Thursday"), the effect isn't very endearing. Born in a well-to-do Midlands family, Chatwin was sent to boarding school at the age of seven, and the first letters here, to his parents, date from that time. Though he was no precocious literary talent, there are already signs of his consuming passions: a demand for a Romany travel book and an anthology called The Open Road at eight; enthusiasm for a film about Australian cattle-drivers; and later, at 17, the purchase of a Louis XVI chair. More surprising is his talent for boxing. But then Chatwin was always tougher than he appeared, not least in matters of the heart.

He was a tough bargainer, too, "a rather hard-nosed business pro", as he put it; that and his love of objets d'art made Sotheby's a logical career choice. He worked there for seven years, travelling widely while he did. When he isn't gushing over his latest acquisition, his idiom might be that of any other gilded youth. "Had an amusing time in Paris & Rome"; "Weather marvellous"; "This island is absolute paradise". Only in an account of a trip to Afghanistan is there a hint that travel writing might be his forte.

It was at Sotheby's that he met Elizabeth. He proposed to her in Paris, in the Louvre, a romantic gesture. But there isn't much romance in the letter he sent telling a friend about it ("The deed is done and in about three months I'll no longer be a free man"), or in his letters to Elizabeth herself: "My dearest Liz" is about as amorous as he gets. "You do not find pining lovers among the Gypsies," he once wrote, and even during their engagement his approach was briskly practical: "Give up all this nonsense of a deep freeze, do not deprive me of the pleasure of eating fresh food in its due season," he urged, letting her know whose job it would be to run the kitchen.

The marriage came as a shock to friends and colleagues, some of whom supposed that the affluence of Elizabeth's American family must be a factor: as a wedding present, her mother gave them £17,000, enough to buy a Gloucestershire farmhouse set in 47 acres. But Chatwin himself wasn't poor, and his friends were full of largesse ("We are invited to Glenveagh for the stalking in Oct. Or would you prefer Sir James Dundas's fishing lodge opposite Mull?"). Perhaps the real attraction was the emotional security she offered: like his mother, she loved listening to the stories he told when he returned from gallivanting about the globe. "People used to ask me how I felt about his endless absences from home," she writes, "but I knew he was working; he had to be free."

Within a year of marrying he'd quit Sotheby's to read archaeology at Edinburgh University: "Change is the only thing worth living for," he explained, before abandoning the degree halfway through. He couldn't stick anywhere for long, not even London: "I find it fine for three weeks, but thereafter WHAT IS THERE TO DO?" Until Francis Wyndham found Chatwin a place on the Sunday Times magazine he was (as one friend put it) a compass without a needle. He left that job, too, after three years. But in the meantime he learned to write. "He is running away from himself by travelling," his archaeology professor, Stuart Piggott, wrote. But in running away Chatwin was also being true to himself and true to his vision of the nomadic nature of human beings. Travel didn't mean roughing it or embracing an alternative lifestyle. "I am fed [sic] to the back teeth by happy hippie hashish culture (jail is the answer)," he wrote, dismissing 60s dropouts as mere vagrants. He was a home-owner, after all, with a country farm and a London flat, and when travelling he liked to be put up in style: whether Tuscan towers, Greek villas or Indian palaces didn't matter so long as he was properly catered for. "When's lunch?" he'd ask, and when he moved on would offer some token sum to cover his expensive telephone bills.

More serious offence was caused when he stayed with his cousin Monica in Peru and copied pages of her father's journal for his book In Patagonia; he claimed, with some justice, that she had given him permission, but he knew a good story when he saw it and wasn't altogether frank in telling her how much of it he'd lifted.

By 1980, Elizabeth's patience with him had also worn thin ("I was furious with him, totally fed up and exasperated that he took me for granted") and they separated. How much she knew of his affairs with men isn't touched on. Nor do we learn anything about them here: his letters to lovers were either destroyed, or were never written, or where they've survived are blandly circumspect. Sex is the great void here, along with passion. Which isn't to say that Chatwin lacked feelings: his grief at the death of his friend Penelope Betjeman was genuine, as was his attachment to his parents. As for Elizabeth, theirs has not been an easy marriage, he told her mother, "but it survives everything because neither of us has loved anyone else".

In 1986 he was diagnosed with Aids. In letters to friends he claimed to have caught a rare fungus of the bone marrow "known only among 10 Chinese peasants and the corpse of a killer whale cast up on the shores of Arabia". Much less was known about Aids in those days, and Chatwin was desperate to protect his parents from the truth. But what also terrified him was the thought of dying a stereotypical death, one that would identify him as just one more casualty of the Aids epidemic. His frantic tales about killer whale corpses or fungal dust inhaled in a Yunnan bats' cave were a way of exoticising himself, much as his books exoticise the places he visited and the people he met.

At best, a disdain for ordinariness strengthens his writing. But at worst it just seems silly, as when he reports what he's been up to in Patagonia: "I have sung 'Hark the Herald Angels Sing' in Welsh . . . I have dined with a man who knew Butch Cassidy . . . I have discussed the poetics of Mandelstam with a Ukrainian doctor missing both legs." Would discussing Mandelstam with someone who isn't a double-amputee be any less interesting? For Chatwin, clearly, it would.

This is a handsome book, full of informative passages from Shakespeare, illuminating quotes from friends and wonderfully laconic and deflating footnotes from Elizabeth. But the Chatwin who wrote the letters is no truer or more candid than the Chatwin who wrote travel books and fiction. And the books are more engaging and more alive.

Blake Morrison's The Last Weekend is published by Chatto & Windus.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds