Augustine
Martin, “The Crock of Gold: Fifty Years After, in Colby
Library Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Dec. 1962), p.148-58.
[ Source: available at
Colby Library - Digital Commons - online;
accessed 27.08.2020. Note: Pagination in square brackets
as per top of page. The punctuation <,> has been
changed to <,> passim.]
IT is fitting that the current revival of interest in the works
of James Stephens, marked by the appearance of Lloyd Frankenberg’s
excellent Selection should coincide with the golden jubilee
of The Crock of Gold. This remarkable fantasy appeared
in 1912, when Stephens was at the height of his creative activity,
and it immediately shot him into the front rank of contemporary
Irish writers. It was a bad time for the making of Irish literary
reputations, accompanied as it was by the rise of the two giant
talents of Yeats and Joyce. Despite the immense shadows cast by
these twin eminences, The Crock of Gold continued to glitter
unobscured for the next fifty years. It is, in fact, one of the
very few modern Irish prose works - perhaps the only one - to
survive in print long enough to celebrate [149] its golden jubilee.
Furthermore, it has done so without the slightest help from that
criticism which begets criticism. It has endured simply by giving
delight and there is no reason why it should not endure forever
for that very reason. Nevertheless, the time for a critical reassessment
has arrived. In the following review I propose to make some attempt
at analyzing the nature of the book’s success and placing
it against its historical background.
The Crock of Gold is one of those rare occurrences in
literature, a pure or radical fantasy: the sort of book that calls
into being an entire world where the rules of this world no longer
apply, a world sufficient in itself, possessing its own laws or
its own indigenous anarchy. A more recent Irish novelist, Mervyn
Wall, hit off the idea very well when he placed his incomparable
Fursey books in ancient monastic Ireland, “where anything
may happen to anyone, anywhere and at any time, and it usually
does.” Such worlds have been created by Lewis Carroll, Swift,
Kenneth Grahame, Tolkien, and perhaps Orwell, Kafka and Aldous
Huxley, though the nightmare sits uneasily within our definition
of fantasy - more frequently the happy dream. The pure fantast
usually has some purpose other than the story itself; his purpose
may be satirical like Swift, Carroll and Wall, cautionary like
Huxley and Orwell, dimly allegorical like Kafka. Stephens, as
we shall see, has didactic purpose lurking beneath the charm and
humor of the book’s surface, a unique and eccentric vision
of a better life, and this vision provides him with the motive
power to create and energize his imaginary world. This didactic
purpose forms the frame and the scaffolding upon which the glittering
tapestry of his invention is stretched. But the pure fantast,
having created his world, must by an unusual exercise of imaginative
control maintain it in being, its magical atmosphere unimpaired.
He can allow no intrusion from the mundane world and the difficulty
of this control probably explains why perfect fantasy is so rare.
One recalls that horrid bargewoman who intruded into the world
of animals in The Wind in the Willows. I recall vividly my childhood
uneasiness during her brief appearance; for one fearful moment
the candles of fantasy fluttered and almost went out. But Stephens
triumphantly maintains his imaginative control. The golden aura
[150] of fantasy is so brilliantly created and sustained that
a policeman can arrest a leprechaun without disrupting it, just
as a walrus and a carpenter can converse freely and convincingly
in Carroll’s masterpiece once the author has waved his magic
wand over their beach.
The plot of The Crock of Gold is remarkably simple.
Characteristically, the actual crock of gold, the mythical treasure
of the leprechauns, has very little to do with it. It merely forms
the center of a sub-plot in the story which we need not concern
ourselves with. The real story concerns the adventures of the
Philosopher and Caitilin Ni Murrachu, the farmer’s daughter.
As there are allegorical overtones involved I will sketch the
main events briefly. The Philosopher lives at the center of the
Dark Wood, dispensing his wisdom to people with problems “too
recondite for even those extremes of elucidation, the parish priest
and the tavern.” To him comes Meehawl 0 Murrachu, who is
worried because his daughter Caitilin has run away from home with
a curious stranger, a man with goat’s legs playing on pipes.
The Philosopher identifies him as the god Pan and resolves to
send his children - not having reached puberty they are immune
to the erotic influence of Pan’s music - to tell him to
return the girl. If this fails, he proposes to call in the services
of the Irish god Angus Og. The children take the message but get
no satisfaction, so the Philosopher goes himself but also fails.
So he undertakes the journey to the home of Angus Og, meeting
with various adventures by the way. Angus Og intervenes and takes
Caitilin for himself. On his return, the Philosopher is arrested
by policemen, rescued by leprechauns, but eventually imprisoned
and taken to the city. His wife, the Thin Woman, goes in tum to
Angus Og for help, and the book ends with Angus Og mustering the
dormant host of fairy Ireland and rescuing the Philosopher.
Before going on to trace the allegorical significance of
these events, it is interesting to focus them momentarily against
the background of their time, to see the material and its treatment
in relationship to that strange state of mind, The Celtic Twilight,
that had for two decades previously held literary Ireland in its
grip. It will be recalled that around the tum of the century [151]
people like Yeats, AE, William Sharp (Fiona Macleod), and Maud
Gonne had been trying to institute a Celtic cult and ritual, an
amalgam of theosophy and fairy faith that was expected to transfigure
the world and make of Tara a new Jerusalem. And while by 1914
this movement to found a pan-Celtic religion had petered out,
it had but recently been living with a tremendous and intense
zeal. Even ten years before, it might not have been so easy to
treat the Celtic gods with the sublime irreverence that Stephens
accorded them. In 1896 AE was confiding momentously to Yeats:
“The gods have returned to Erin and have centered themselves
among the sacred mountains and blow fires through the land. They
have been seen by many in vision, they will awaken the magical
instinct everywhere and the universal heart of the people will
tum to the old druidic beliefs.” [Ftn. To get a full view
of this movement, which I can only glance at in passing, one must
go to Richard Ellmann’s excellent book, Yeats: The Man and
the Masks, NY, 1948.] Part of the cult was the belief in the coming
of a new redeemer. An avatar, AE termed it, and he himself claimed
to have seen the Irish avatar in one of his celebrated visions.
Perhaps it would be easy to exaggerate the connection between
the Celtic dream and Stephens’s fantasy, but I cannot help
associating these words of Russell’s about the old gods
coming back and Stephens’s reincarnation of Pan and Angus
Og and the leprechauns of Gort na Cloca Mora. Further point is
given the association by Stephens’s choice of Angus Og,
because this god was one of the twin deities of the Celtic cult
as conceived in 1902; he was their figure for Divine Imagination.
His complementary deity was Etain, their goddess of beauty, and
it is hardly without significance that Stephens chooses her story
for redaction in his In the Land of Youth (1924).
Now it is obvious from his treatment of this material that
Stephens comes at the end of the movement. He is sufficiently
removed from the cult to treat its notions with a gentle mockery,
as evidenced in the following extract, where Meehawl listens to
the Philosopher formulating his strategy for getting Caitilin
back from Pan. [152]
“I’ll send my two children
with a message to him to say that he isn’t doing the
decent thing and that if he doesn’t let the girl alone
and go back to his own country we’ll send for Angus
Og.”
“He’d make short work
of him I’m thinking.”
“He might surely; but he may
take the girl for himself all the same.”
“Well I’d sooner he had
her than the other one, for he’s one of ourselves anyhow
and the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t
know.”
“Angus Og is a god”,
said the Philosopher severely.
There is obviously no great solemnity in Stephens’s
approach to the Celtic pantheon. It is not all mockery either,
because Stephens shared the aspirations if not the beliefs that
gave rise to this synthetic conjunction of theosophy and superstition.
He shared the antagonism to 19th century rationalism, to Victorian
convention, to the hidebound set of rules and regulations that
civilization had become; he shared too the general antipathy towards
a religion that to him seemed to exclude all possibility of mysticism
and beauty in its emphasis on devotion and discipline. And this
is in fact the rhetorical trend of The Crock of Gold which is
in itself a plea for the old pagan and sensual delight of Pan
and the divine spiritual intellect of Angus Og. Consequently,
Stephens uses the machinery of Celtic paganism to embody his social
message. In its message The Crock of Gold foreshadows Lawrence’s
sexual manifesto in Lady Chatterley’s Lover which was sixteen
years in the offing. It is ironical that two books so disparate
should stand for such similar values; one so cold, crude and humorless
that it repelled its public, the other informed with such whimsical
charm and wit that its message has been almost completely overlooked.
And certainly no one will regret that in The Crock of Gold the
artist triumphed over the didact. Before going on to consider
purely literary things however, some attempt must be made to pin
down the allegory. Fortunately, Stephens has provided us with
a useful key.
In her authoritative assemblage of Stephens’s literary
remains Birgit Bramsback [Ftn. James Stephens: A Literary and
Bibliographical Study, Dublin, 1959] draws attention to a remark
written by the author on a flyleaf of a copy of The Crock of Gold.
[153]
In this book there is only one character,
Man - Pan is his sensual nature, Caitilin his emotional nature,
the Philosopher his intellect at play, Angus Og his intellect
spiritualized, the policemen his conventions and logics, the
leprechauns his elemental side, the children his innocence,
and the idea is not too rigidly carried out but that is how
I conceived the story.
I have attempted privately to trace the allegory pedantically
in terms of this key and have found that the plan, as he stated,
is not rigidly enforced. In fact it is doubtful that the plan
is not a rationalization after the fact, or at least a conception
that emerged as the book took shape on paper. For instance, it
takes no account of the fact that he sets out with two philosophers
and kills one of them off half way through the second chapter.
However, instead of getting litigious over a correspondence that
the author does not claim, it is better to follow the allegorical
directions that he actually indicates. They can be briefly stated
as follows.
In the adventures of Caitilin the emotions of man reach
puberty, pass into a state of happy sensuality under Pan - resisting
the dry intellectual restraints of the Philosopher - and go on
to a perfect fulfillment under Angus Og, the intellect spiritualized.
On a related progression the Philosopher - who has hitherto lived
in the midst of barren intellectual speculations - resists with
difficulty the persuasion of Pan but flees in terror when Pan
reaches for his pipes. He goes on to Angus Og while “through
his perturbation there bubbled a stream of such amazing well-being
as he had not felt since childhood.” To emphasize that his
cerebral conventionality is already being overthrown, he kisses
a fat woman by the wayside. Soon we find him at the cave of Angus
Og, prostrating himself before the god, and this we take to be
the homage of the cerebrating intellect to the higher spirituality.
The confusion that keeps arising with Stephens’s
use of terms such as Spirit, Soul, Mind, intellect, and intelligence
seen1S to be due to the theosophist terminology, which as a devotee
he made use of. In Madame Blavatsky’s The Secret Doctrine
the following distinction is made:
Man is triume; he has his objective physical body; his
vitalizing astral body (or soul), the real man; and these two
are brooded over by the third, the sovereign, the immortal Spirit.
When the real man succeeds in merging himself with the latter
he becomes an immortal entity. [154]
Angus Og obviously represents this immortal Spirit and
in the scheme of things he is destined to absorb and transmute
the cerebrating intellect in the figure of the Philosopher, which
in fact he does at the end.
On his way home the Philosopher is captured by policemen.
In all of Stephens’s work the policeman is consistently
seen as the hostile embodiment of law and convention at its most
stupidly menacing, and here the policemen are made savage sport
of. Now, in the person of the Philosopher, man’s intellect
is subjected to a deeper incarceration than ever before. But the
book ends with Angus Og summoning the elfin hosts to rescue him:
Even the intellect of man they took
from the hands of the doctors and lawyers, from the sly priests,
from the professors whose mouths are gorged with sawdust and
the merchants who sell blades of grass - the awful people
of the Fornor and they returned again dancing and singing
to the country of the gods.
This, crudely, is the allegorical trend of the novel. It
does not attempt to account for the significance of the leprechauns,
the old beggar-woman, the company of tinkers, the three alembics
- which are self-explanatory - and the other more or less meaningful
figures in the book. It is impossible to fit them all into the
symbolic plan without creating labyrinths of ingenuity. Even if
Stephens did set out with the plan in his mind, it is well that
he did not tie himself to it. Instead, he gave rein to his inventive
energy and let the characters take on life of themselves. He could
never have sustained a world populated by fragmented human faculties;
he would not have arrived at a book but a boneyard.
Before leaving these deeper implications of the book, however,
let me return fleetingly to the notion of Celtic paganism towards
which the author had such an ambivalent attitude. At the end of
the story, as Angus Og and Caitilin watch the fairy hosts mustering
for their march on the city, the following snatch of dialogue
takes place. Angus says:
“This will be our first journey,
but on a time not distant we will go to them again, and we
will not return from that journey, for we will live among
our people and be at peace.”
“May the day come soon”,
said she. [155]
“When thy son is a man he will
go before us on the journey”, said Angus, and Caitilin
shivered with a great delight, knowing that a son would be
born to her.
There is no lack of solemnity in this exchange, and it
is obvious that Stephens wants it to be taken with some seriousness.
It is a clear reference to the redeemer myth, the avatar for which
Russell and Yeats were seeking, this son born of a god and a mortal.
It is a ubiquitous notion in the theosophist concept and had a
strong fascination for Stephens. In the culmination of the next
fantasy, The Demi-Gods (1914) he marries a tinker girl
to an angel. The whole book, in fact, in a gentle ironical way
is levelled at the status quo, to use a more recent phrase - the
Establishment in Ireland. This mildly satirical motif becomes
initially evident in Pan’s sad strictures on “this
country where no people have done any reverence to me”,
and it culminates in the flourish quoted above, where the intellect
of man is rescued from the awful people of Fomor. This thread
of social commentary could be pursued at length, but enough has
been said to indicate its presence and the manner in which it
operates.
While these underlying attitudes, these significant myths
and allegorical patterns are important in giving body and structure
to the novel, they do not explain its success, its perennial appeal
to successive generations of readers, the majority of whom only
barely sense any message beyond the story itself. One does not
have to probe deeply to recognize the book’s secret. Apart
from its primary achievement in weaving an atmosphere of unassailable
fantasy, the book owes its triumph to its superb comic characterization,
the Philosopher. This irresistible old cod stands at the center
of the book and from him emanates an infectious drollery that
seems to imbue his whole fabulous world with a sense of enlightened
absurdity. No man quite like the Philosopher ever lived but -
and this is the point of radical fantasy - within the structure
of his world he is utterly real, utterly convincing; he stands
for all that is garrulous, argumentative and imperturbable in
man and he also shares with such fellow immortals as Pickwick,
Mole, Fursey, and Bottom the weaver, that divine innocence that
is a shield against all vicissitude and that makes an eternal
appeal to the embattled innocence in man. The Philosopher’s
is a subtle innocence. He not [156] only knows everything in theory
but he can reduce everything to theory. His is the sort of brain
that can neatly field any new suggestion however dangerous and
render it harmless by fitting it into the elaborate, never-ending
thought sequences that are his mind.
He is the purest of stoics whether replying with maddening
imperturbability to his wife’s abuse, digressing superbly
on the subject of clothing in the presence of Pan, or holding
forth with intemperate calmness on the dispensability of policemen
while being borne along beneath one of their colossal arms. Only
once is his tranquillity ruffled, and that is when the power of
Pan sets him pondering the naked beauty of Caitilin. When he runs
in terror from the cave of the god it is not because his argumentative
powers have failed him but because Pan threatens him with a weapon
that is not of the mind. The incident is so finely written that
I quote it in full. Not only does it give us a glimpse of Stephens’s
dialogue and characterization but it contains a good deal of the
book’s message. On entering Pan’s cave, the Philosopher
has been momentarily unnerved by the sight of Caitilin naked.
Recovering splendidly, he takes refuge in a philosophical discussion
of the entire subject of clothing, emerging triumphantly and at
length with the question:
“Now, what is virtue?”
Pan, who had listened with great
courtesy to these remarks, here broke in on the Philosopher.
“Virtue”, he said, “is the performance of
pleasant actions.”
The Philosopher held the statement
for a moment on his forefinger. “And what then is vice?”
said he.
“It is vicious”, said
Pan, “to neglect the performance of pleasant actions.”
“If this be so”, the
other commented, “philosophy has up to the present been
on the wrong track.”
“That is so”, said Pan.
“Philosophy is an immoral practice because it suggests
a standard of practice impossible of being followed, and which
if it could be followed would lead to the great sin of sterility.”
“The idea of virtue”,
said the Philosopher with some indignation. “has animated
the noblest intellects in the world.”
“It has not animated them”,
replied Pan. “It has hypnotized them so that they have
conceived virtue as repression and self-sacrifice as an honorable
thing instead of the suicide, which it is.”
Indeed”, said the Philosopher,
“this is very interesting, and if it is true the whole
conduct of life will have to be very much simplified.”
“Life is already simple”,
said Pan. “It is to be born and to die and in the interval
to eat and drink, to dance and sing, to marry and beget children.”
[157]
“But this is simply materialism”,
cried the Philosopher.
“Why do you say but?”
replied Pan.
‘‘‘It is sheer
unredeemed animalism”, continued his visitor.
“It is any name you please
to call it”, replied Pan.
“You have proved nothing”,
the Philosopher shouted.
“What can be sensed requires
no proof.”
“You leave out the new thing”,
said the Philosopher. “You leave out brains. I believe
in mind above matter, thought above emotion, spirit above
flesh.”
“Of course you do”, said
Pan, and he reached for his oaten pipe. The Philosopher ran
to the opening of the passage and thrust Caitilin aside.
“Hussy”, said he fiercely
to her, and he darted out. As he went up the rugged path he
could hear the pipes of Pan, calling and sobbing and making
high merriment on the air.
Nothing demonstrates the fantast’s
skill better than this extract. The atmosphere of an enchanted
world is so brilliantly sustained that a conversation between
an archetypal philosopher and an old shaggy god disputing
for custody of a demurely naked Irish girl goes forward without
any sense of unreality. Real fantasy is not fiction, it is
heightened reality, reality free from the inhibiting conventions
of realism. Note that the dialogue itself is neither inflated
nor restrained. It makes no false rhetorical gestures, it
is miraculously real, springing organically from the pressure
of the situation. Its humor too is superbly spontaneous, from
the judicial image of the Philosopher spearing an epigram
on his forefinger to the timing of Pan’s final formidable
gesture.
No wonder we feel the tears of things when, towards the
end of the book, we find this intrepid cerebral adventurer trapped
and confined in a dark cell asking himself sadly, “Can one’s
mind go to prison with one’s body?”
Around the Philosopher is assembled a number of other vivid
characterizations; the policemen, in one of the most hilarious
sequences in modern fiction, exhibit that massive fumbling ineptitude
that Stephens reserves for his policemen; the children are instinct
with that unabashed yet wondering innocence that we recall in
Seamus Beg of the poems; the leprechauns enjoy an elemental vitality
that seems to energize their whole fantastic world; but in Meehawl
Stephens caught miraculously a certain attitude of drollness,
an amused tolerance in the presence of crotchety genius that anyone
who knows the Irish countryman [158] closely cannot fail to recognize.
This is to say nothing of the impressive figures of the two gods
wherein are mirrored for all time, on one hand, the anguished
loneliness of the esthete and, on the other, the grievous dignity
of the unloved sensualist.
Yet, however true these observations may be, they fall
pitiably short of explaining the miracle of invention that is
The Crock of Gold. There is that about true fantasy, a feeling
in the air, elusive airy, magical--the word cannot be avoided.
It is a quality that defies logic just as the happy dream defies
any effort to render it in words. It is this quality which makes
The Crock of Gold endure, though its philosophy be discredited
and its occasional flaws of structure be dissected by a hundred
pedants. In Ave, George Moore came close to catching the rare
elfin atmosphere that Stephens’s book evokes:
Suddenly the songs of the birds were silenced by the sound
of a lyre; Apollo and his muses appeared on the hillside; for
in those stories the gods and mortals mixed in delightful comradeship,
the mortals not having lost all trace of their “divine”
origin, and the gods themselves being the kind of beneficent gods
that live in Arcady.
He was, in fact, writing of the now neglected stories of
AE, but one feels justified in stealing them to pay right tribute
to the curious enchanted genius of James Stephens, as he passes
on steadily towards immortality.
|
|