Date post: | 17-Sep-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | szabadi-istvan |
View: | 9 times |
Download: | 3 times |
MAGIC AND HISTORY IN SUSANNA CLARKES
JONATHAN STRANGE AND MR NORRELL
By
Istvn Szabadi
University of Debrecen
Institute of English and American Studies
Supervisor: Dr. Tams Bnyei
Debrecen, Hungary
2012
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
I. History ................................................................................................................................... 3
1. History as the object of contempt ................................................................................... 3
2. Historiographic metafiction ............................................................................................ 5
3. Historical representations................................................................................................ 9
II. Magic .................................................................................................................................. 14
1. Magic and history intertwined ...................................................................................... 14
2. Magic as discourse .......................................................................................................... 18
3. Primitive magic ........................................................................................................... 20 4. Magic as institution ........................................................................................................ 26
III. The dichotomy of Nature and Culture .......................................................................... 29
1. A Rousseauian text ......................................................................................................... 29
2. Nature: feared and desired ............................................................................................ 30
3. Fairies: a natural culture ............................................................................................... 33
4. Magic and Christianity .................................................................................................. 36
5. A return to (of) Nature ................................................................................................... 38
Conclusion: Nature re-presented .......................................................................................... 42
1
Introduction
We must have magicians. Who else can interpret Englands history to us? Our common
historians cannot (Clarke 91).
Susanna Clarkes first novel, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, presents an account of
a certain period of English history, saturated by the presence of magic. Neil Gaiman considers
Clarkes novel as the finest English novel of the fantastic written in the last seventy years
(on the cover of the book) but Audrey Niffenegger, in her introduction of the novel, suggests
that the categorisation of the novel as fantasy fails to define the complexity of Jonathan
Strange and Mr Norrell: Fantasy is simply the branch of literature which contains a very
high ratio of invented things to real things. Susanna Clarke straddles the line her inventions
dovetail so perfectly with things we know to be true (though how we know this is another
perplexing question) that after spending an afternoon with Jonathan Strange doing magic in
the service of Lord Wellington or kibitzing with Lord Byron it is no wonder that some of us
yearn for the good old days of English (n.pag).
Niffenegger touches upon issues I shall elaborate on my paper: First I intend to define
Clarkes novel in terms of a postmodern pseudo-historical genre, as historiographic
metafiction, based on Linda Hutcheons theory. As the issues of history and historical
representation are crucial for the genre and for postmodernism as well, I discuss the way they
are presented in Clarkes novel, applying the theories of Hayden White and Frank Ankersmit.
I shall also analyse the manner in which magic and history are intertwined in Jonathan
Strange and Mr Norrell and examine how the novel juxtaposes possible approaches to the
issue of magic. I propose a reading of the Strangite approach as similar to primitive magic in
the anthropological sense and then I describe Gilbert Norrells attitude in terms of magic
considered as an institution with its specific cultural role; in terms of alchemy rather than
2
primitive magic. Finally, I shall give an interpretation of the difference between these
approaches based on the dichotomy of Nature and Culture in the sense in which it is discussed
by Jacques Derrida.
3
I. History
1. History as the object of contempt
He hardly ever spoke of magic, and when he did it was like a history lesson and no one could
bear to listen to him (Clarke 1).
The motto of the novel poses a set of disturbing questions: the criticism is aimed at Mr
Norrell, the magician, who is destined (mostly by himself) to restore English magic to its
former glory. Starting a novel which is supposed to be full of magic with such a sentence
may have a discouraging effect on the reader: why would the author connect magic and
history, especially if the latter is shown as something of embarrassingly low interest? Which
one of the two is the novel really about? Is it a fantasy novel at all? In my paper, I will explore
the relationship in the novel between magic and history.
In The Burden of History Hayden White shows that late 19th century historians were
shown as people of a very low status in literature (34). He enumerates a group of exemplary
characters who represent the same historical consciousness as Mr Norrell. Through them the
works of literature express contempt for history and regard historians as figures of stagnation
or regression to the past. Casaubon in George Eliots Middlemarch is such a character, just
like Jrgen Tesman in Ibsens Hedda Gabler. They both embody the history that is unable to
release people from its burden, its nightmare those who examine it will always remain in a
detached, distant past and eventually forget about present reality (The Burden 34-37). White
attributes the origins of this attitude to Nietzsche: Nietzsche hated history even more than he
hated religion (Tropics 32). In The Use and Abuse of History, Nietzsche enumerates three
different conceptions of history. Norrell represents the attitude that Nietzsche calls
antiquarian. For Nietzsche, this conception of history is irreconcilable with life: there is a
degree of doing history and a valuing of it through which life atrophies and degenerates
through which living comes to harm and finally is destroyed, whether it is a person or a
people or a culture (Nietzsche 27, 31). Hayden White rejects this negative attitude and in his
works he strives to reconsider the place of history. Similarly to White and to Nietzsche,
4
Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell offers several contrasting and overlapping (thus much less
determining) attitudes and views of history.
Apart from the character of Mr Norrell, the novel presents another, very different
instance of contempt for history. Towards the end of the book John Uskglass returns to
rewrite his book which is the body of Vinculus1, the street sorcerer2. When Vinculus realises
the change he celebrates it with a gleeful dance, but Childermass3 becomes upset and worried
at the loss of the words. He does not understand why the original had to disappear. Vinculus
answers as follows: I was a Prophecy before; but the things that I foretold have come to pass.
So it is just as well I have changed or I would have become a History! A dry-as-dust
History! (Clarke 994). While White acknowledges the validity of such contempt and
declares that the perception of history and historians has to be changed, he strives to attain
this through unveiling and analysing the truth-manufacturing processes of historiography in
order to establish the position of history as a dialogue between past and present and validate
its importance in understanding human experience (The Burden 67). Jonathan Strange and
Mr Norrell is not a book about the contempt for history but it is precisely about how
problematic an issue history can be, in Hayden Whites sense.
1 Vinculuss father ate the actual book of the Raven King and as a consequence his son was born with the book written on his skin in strange, blue marks, that is, the Kings Letters (Clarke 974). 2 Street sorcerers pretend to be practical magicians who rob children of their pennies (Clarke 5). They are charlatans, their practical magic is the bosom companion of unshaven faces, gypsies, house-breakers (Ibid.). Keith Thomas in Religion and the Decline of Magic discusses the role of cunning men, that is, medieval magicians who can be identified with street sorcerers in Clarkes novel. Even though it is not in the main focus of my paper, it would certainly be worth examining the connection between them, as well as the way they are
related to primitive oracles, magicians and witches as described, for example, in E. E. Evans-Pritchards Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande. 3 Childermass is the servant of Mr Norrell who also performs magic, mostly in secret.
5
2. Historiographic metafiction
If one accepts that it is possible and rewarding to examine the novel from this
perspective, one can see that it exceeds the limits of the genre of fantasy. It can find its place
in the genre of historiographic metafiction as defined by Linda Hutcheon. Jonathan Strange
and Mr Norrell has characteristics in common with novels analysed in Hutcheons A Poetics
of Postmodernism (John Fowless A Maggot, J. Michael Coetzees Foe or Ian Watsons
Chekhovs Journey) but it also resembles Lawrence Norfolks Lemprires Dictionary. All of
these novels provide an unofficial, alternative account of a certain historical period. Norfolk,
for example, gives false, fantastic causes and background to the French Revolution without
altering further basic historical data. There are apocryphal accounts of history in Jonathan
Strange and Mr Norrell as well that are similar to those in Norfolks novel. For instance, the
whole of the Napoleonic wars is waged with magical aid: Norrell and Strange both do magic
on the instructions of the government both in England in the Peninsular War with the Duke of
Wellington. The representation of historical figures also contributes to the apocryphal nature
of the novel as all of them are heavily involved in the magical reality: the Duke of
Wellington, the mad King George III and Lord Byron all appear in the novel with a first-hand
experience of magic. Furthermore, gothic writers (such as William Beckford, Matthew Lewis
and Ann Radcliffe) are presented as contributors to magic: there is debate if the horrors of
their writing could be used in magic to create dreams that Mr Norrell could then pop into
Buonapartes head (Clarke 311). Sir Walter Scott also appears in the novel to write about Mr
Norrell (Clarke 363). However, the novel ventures even further than this; what it offers is the
invention and a thorough rewriting of what is represented as an uncanonised, forgotten aspect
of public history. Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell presents a recognisable early 19th-century
England (and Europe) which differs from the official historical version in one major
respect: in this world, magic is part of life, known by practically everybody. In the England of
the novel nobody is surprised at the existence of magic and magicians.
6
According to Hutcheons theory, the attention drawn to history is itself a characteristic
of historiographic metafiction. She finds that the presence of the past (Hutcheon 4) is an
important concept of postmodernism and thus it is a crucial aspect of historiographic
metafiction history is now, once again, an issue and a rather problematic one at that
(Hutcheon 87). This tendency surfaces at several points in the novel, most strikingly in its
exhaustive rewriting of history. Hutcheon attributes to the genre the attitude of a critical
revisiting, an ironic dialogue with the past instead of a nostalgic return (Hutcheon 4) to it
and this is what rewriting contributes to. Such revisiting also means giving voice to
oppressed, minoritarian discourses (Hutcheon 61)4. Similarly, by choosing history (and also:
the problems of history and attitudes to history) as a central theme, as a central plot element of
the novel, Clarke indeed conjures the presence of the past: the basic difference between
Norrell and Strange is shown in their attitude towards magical history and the past reality of
magic, and the controversy of their principles becomes one of the major driving forces of the
plot.
Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, as historiographic metafiction, differs significantly
from the classical, 19th-century historical novel. Gyrgy Lukcs in A trtnelmi regny
examines the characteristics of historical novel and here I would like to point out three that
Linda Hutcheon also discusses in A Poetics of Postmodernism. First, Lukcs argues that the
protagonist, as a historical figure, always embodies and internalises the nation and the
ideology it fights for: [the heros] human greatness is based on the fact that her/his personal
passion, personal aims coincide with the actual great historical currents and that she/he
combines the positive and negative sides of this current (Lukcs 44 my translation). This is
contrasted by the postmodernist historical figure in Hutcheons theory: the protagonists of
historiographic metafiction are anything but proper types: they are ex-centrics (Hutcheon
4 Even though it is beyond the scope of this paper, this aspect of marginal history could offer a great number of possible approaches to the text: it would be fruitful to examine the situation of Lady Pole, Arabella Strange or
Stephen Black in the story. They represent the off-centre positions and the author builds around them one of the
most problematic and subversive side of the plot that is, how gender and racial issues saturate the text.
7
114). Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell both struggle finding their proper place in their own
time and also in the huge magical tradition. They cannot embody a tradition they cannot or
do not want to understand. Hutcheon also argues that while historical fiction, according to
Lukcs, uses historical data and evidence only to increase the verifiability of the novel by
assimilating and internalising it, postmodern fiction actually uses historical data but rarely
assimilates them (Hutcheon 114). This factor is clearly present in Clarkes novel in the huge
amount of bibliographical data and footnoting as a device. The third characteristic is
concerned with real historical figures. Lukcs writes that historically significant figures
are compositionally supporting characters (Lukcs 45 my translation) but in postmodern
novels this is hardly the case (Hutcheon 114). Clarkes novel presents historical figures
like the Duke of Wellington as characters that are heavily involved in the plot. Lukcs
suggests that the author of historical fiction lets them [the historical figures] act of their own
accord (Lukcs 45) but in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell they do not appear only to play
themselves, that is, to act the way they did in real history. As I have discussed before,
these characters are apocryphal and this also means that they are significant in the novel.
Although the apocryphal history depicted in the novel can be regarded the way
Doctorows Ragtime was considered as dehistoricized and devoid of historical memory by
Terry Eagleton, this claim is not valid, neither can we say that this kind of novel lacks the
referent or real historical world (Hutcheon 18-19). This is one point where Hutcheons and
Hayden Whites theories meet: postmodernist, historically conscious thinking does not lack
such a referent but highlights what is problematic about it and its representation by the means
of historiographic metafiction [which] inscribes and only then subverts its mimetic
engagement with the world (Hutcheon 20). I will return later to the way this shift is
discussed by White and how it is applicable to Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell.
Hutcheon considers the presence of footnotes as an important element of
historiographic metafiction, and Clarkes novel uses them extensively. Hutcheon writes: [the
genre uses] the paratextual conventions of historiography (especially footnotes) to both
8
inscribe and undermine the authority and objectivity of historical sources and explanations
(Hutcheon 123). The footnotes in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell create a small universe,
an alternative reality with the multitude of stories told in them, showing that the novel is
balancing on the borderline between fiction and history, simulating the truth-manufacturing
textual machinery of footnotes in order to offer a number of supernatural anecdotes.
Finally, it is interesting to see how a characteristic concern of historiographic
metafiction becomes a plot element in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. Hutcheon argues
that writing down the truth about history always involves a process that will silence,
exclude, and absent certain past events (Hutcheon 107). This is exactly what Mr Norrell does
when he strives to obtain every single book which is concerned with magic and magical
history. When Strange is trying to buy some magical books, the bookseller smiles and bows
and says, Ah sir, you are come too late! I had a great many books upon subjects magical and
historical. But I sold them all to a very learned gentleman of Yorkshire. It is always Norrell
(Clarke 278). Meanwhile, Norrell himself wants to write a comprehensive study of magic
(and magical education) so that everyone would know his account of the past as the only and
definitive version. This account would omit the Raven King and the fairies who embody the
kind of magic that is beyond the scope of institutionalisation intended by Norrell. He admires
and follows another, long-deceased magician, who also wanted to write a comprehensive
collection of rules concerning magic and exclude[d] those kinds of magic for which it is
customary to employ fairies (Clarke 75). Norrell is sure that Great Britains best interests
were served by absolute silence on these subjects (Clarke 539)5.
5 This process of selection, exclusion and silence is also thoroughly discussed by Hayden White: the way
different historical representations can be formulated from a given set of past events (The Burden 73).
9
3. Historical representations
In Historical Representation, F. R. Ankersmit investigates how history is presented to
us and discusses how historians intend to reveal past reality (12-14). He makes a distinction
between two modes of talking about that reality: description and representation. For
Ankersmit description means speaking about reality through a subject-predicate construction.
For example, we can describe the earth by saying that the earth is globular, a claim whose
truth or falsity can be verified simply by deciding if the subject possesses that property or not.
Description is mimesis in terms of language and it takes its own truthfulness for granted.
As opposed to this, Ankersmits notion of representation suggests a mode in which
two things are presented whose relation is metaphorical in nature. For instance, the statement
the earth is a spaceship (Ankersmit 13) is definitely not true as a description (the earth is
not a spaceship) but in a diegetical sense, in the world created by the metaphor, true properties
of the earth can be derived from this statement. Hayden White writes that historical
representations are by no means identical to scale models, physical models whose accuracy
can be evaluated by measurements. It is the alien, distant or even absent status of the past that
prevents historians from doing so. They are not mimetic copies but metaphorical statements
which can be regarded as true or false only in their metaphorical sense (The Burden 81).
Even though the absence of the represented is unalterable, it is important to see what is
absent and thus needs to be re-presented in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. However,
first it is crucial to see how Ankersmit links the etymology of representation to the status of
the absent represented. The etymology of the word representation will give us access to its
ontological properties: we may re-present something by presenting a substitute of this thing
in its absence. The real thing is not, or is no longer available to us, and something else is
given to us in order to replace it (Ankersmit 11). In the case of Norrell and Strange the
Raven King is the absence, the missing represented. As Mr Norrell puts it: Do you think he
[The Raven King] cares what happens to England? I tell you he does not. He abandoned us
long ago (Clarke 539). The empty throne of the Raven King allegorises the absence of the
10
referent of all discourses about the past. The attitudes of Strange and Norrell to this absence
will be discussed later.
In the absence of the referent, historical representations, historical narratives are
supposed to be as real as past events were. Hayden Whites theory on the process of
emplotment is applicable here to Clarkes novel. White argues that the events are made
into a story by suppression or subordination of certain of them and the highlighting of others
and so from value-neutral (Tropics 84) events it is possible to create an almost infinite
number of different kinds of representations. The lack of any single truth results in
accumulating and investigating various truths: [H]istorical insight is not a matter of a
continuous narrowing down of previous options, not of an approximation of the truth, but,
on the contrary, is an explosion of possible points of view (Ankersmit 16).
It also follows that one representation, one metaphor alone cannot generate a full
rendering of reality: numerous different statements can be true, like for instance the earth is a
spaceship, the earth is a garden (Ankersmit 14); these statements can coexist without
rendering each other false. What is more, the acceptance of parallel true metaphors is the only
way to a fuller understanding: [W]e are relatively helpless if we have only one metaphor.
Only if more metaphors are available can a comparison be made and only then can their
relative shortcomings and merits be discussed. This may explain why we dont have in history
just one more or less authoritative account, accepted by all historians (Ankersmit 14). Even
though the historian-author emplots his account as a story of a particular kind and produces
a romance, tragedy, comedy, satire, epic, or what have you (Tropics 86), these
representations never cancel each other out but rather create a more complete understanding
of the past.
The mechanism of emplotment is exemplified in Clarkes novel in the scene when
Childermass uses his deck of tarot cards to reveal the future (and also the past and the
present). This form of fortune-telling is traditionally about interpretation as divination, maybe
even more than any other classical forms. The cards are symbols with culturally attached
11
meanings which, taken together, give meaning to a specific, momentary situation. There are
an infinite number of interpretations of a given number of cards. Of course, as magic is real in
the novel, it is no surprise that Childermass can tell the future of Vinculus, but the more
interesting instance of the dealing of the tarot cards is definitely the one done for Childermass
by Vinculus6. Even though he is able to deal the cards in a pattern that reveals the truth about
Childermass, Vinculus cannot attach meaning to this chain of signs because in this magical
reality he lacks the necessary knowledge. However, this example is applicable to the
problematics of not interpreting historical events: they remain a distant reality without any
connection between past and present, without creating the presence of the past.
In an even more complex fashion the same principle of emplotment/interpretation is
depicted in the scene where Vinculus is rewritten by the Raven King. The street sorcerer is
glad to have changed as it indicates that magic is indeed alive and, like every living entity, is
subject to constant change. He feels that a History is different from a Prophecy in the
hierarchical sense mentioned before. However, he does not perceive that on a certain level
these are very similar texts. Trying to tell what will happen seems as problematic as telling
what has happened. The method both of a Prophecy and a History is based on interpreting
signs. When Childermass tries to identify and understand a sign on Vinculus the street
sorcerer cannot answer him the way Childermass demands of him: It means last Tuesday,
he said. It means three pigs, one of em wearing a straw hat! It means Sally went a-dancing
in the moons shadow and lost a little rosy purse! (Clarke 995). The confusion becomes total
if one realises that even the overall meaning or purpose of the new text is unknown and the
possibilities are unlimited. Perhaps I am a Receipt-Book! Perhaps I am a Novel! Perhaps I
am a Collection of Sermons! (Clarke 994). It can be a Prophecy, again, but also a History.
As long as events, symbols, signs remain value-neutral no explanation or truth-fabrication
is possible but through the process of emplotment a representation is produced.
6 Then he turned them over one by one: XVIII La Lune, XVI La Maison Dieu reversed, The Nine of Swords, Valet de Baton, The Ten of Batons reversed, II La Papesse, X La Rove de Fortune, The Two of Coins, The King
of Cups. Childermass laughed. That is my life there on the table. But you cannot read it (Clarke 238).
12
Ankersmit makes another interesting remark that might be useful in a reading of
Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell: The best historical representation is the most original one,
the least conventional one, the one that is least likely to be true and that yet cannot be
refuted on the basis of existing historical evidence (Ankersmit 22). Susanna Clarkes book is
indeed a most original and unlikely account, representation of the past. It is not likely to be
true and it can be refuted on the basis of evidence that is, evidence in the strictest sense of
the word.
Susanna Clarke invented a number of historians and books which retell an alternative
or apocryphal history that could not possibly have happened. Meanwhile, on the other hand,
the past that is considered as true or manufactured as true in the most conventional-rational
sense mingles so profoundly with the imaginary that one easily loses ones grasp on what is
intended as the novels primary reality. This characteristic of the novel suits both Linda
Hutcheons and Hayden Whites theory. This effect is also characteristic of the genre of
Menippean satire according to the analysis by Bakhtin7. As Ankersmit puts it: The
Menippean satirist shows his exuberance in intellectual ways, by piling up an enormous mass
7 Although there is no space here to go into a detailed analysis, I want to indicate a few directions that a reading of Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell as a Menippean satire might take. In Problems of Dostoevskys Poetics, Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin describes Menippean satire and offers a set of characteristics of fourteen elements
(Balthin 143-149), also claiming that the Menippean satire has become a major means of carrying and accompanying the carnivalistic worldview, even today (Bakhtin 142 my translation). This indicates that the genre is still evolving with or without definable genre-consciousness (Bakhtin 142 my translation). There are several among Bakhtins features that seem to apply to Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. The element of laughter (especially reduced laughter) can be tracked in the overall ironical representation of English social life.
The freedom from demands of realistic, life-like (one may add: historical) representation is a basic, inherent
aspect of both Menippean satire and Clarkes novel. The adventurous journeys the characters (especially Jonathan Strange) go through are always means of searching for truths and principles (about magic and magical
traditions) by challenging (and subverting) them. The established framework of magic directly allows the
presentation of supernatural realms: here the land of Fairie is a recurring place, but heaven and hell are also
mentioned as real and accessible. According to Bakhtin, Menippean satire was the first literary genre to
introduce moral-psychological experimentation, that is, the representation of unusual, abnormal moral-psychical states of people all kinds of madness , duplication of personality, unstoppable musing, strange dreams and passions verging on madness (Bakhtin 146 my translation). The result of these transgressive mechanisms is that human fate loses its completeness and unambiguity, the identity of the self ceases to exist but this leads to the opening up of the possibility of another self, another life (Bakhtin 146 my translation). This is crucial for Jonathan Strange who can reach the desired, deeper, more dangerous forms of magic through
madness only. His insanity and the events it leads to fulfil another characteristic of the Menippean satire: the
genre, like Clarkes novel presents scandalous scenes, peculiar behaviour, improper speech and remarks, that is, the transgression of the generally accepted and usual course of events; of the norms of behaviour and etiquette (Bakthin 147 my translation).
13
of erudition about his theme or by overwhelming his targets with an avalanche of their own
jargon (Ankersmit 2). The reader is confounded in the maze of data, yet one can observe
how this also points towards proposing truths: the reader is forced to acknowledge the
existence of mechanisms of truth-producing. Truth is not something out there but an effect
of these mechanisms.
In order to reinforce this distrustful approach to an exclusive truth, the novel radically
breaks with the solid mechanism of constructing the narrative voice (and the narrative
agency): there are at least three different (and incompatible) kinds of narrative identity and of
truth-manufacturing discourse. First, the voice of a classical 19th-century novelist provides the
omniscient narration which inherently knows everything and shares a certain amount of the
knowledge with the reader. The novel even uses consistently archaic forms of certain words
(surprize or shew) to characterise the narrative voice. Apart from the kind of truth derived
from omniscience, Clarkes novel evokes a historian-archivist discourse by means of the
extensive footnotes and bibliographical references. The kind of truth manufactured by this is
evidence-based, factual; it presupposes that the Truth can be reached but it is not self-evident
even for the narrative agency. The third narrative identity or agency involves a very subjective
perspective which surfaces in certain lapses that Victorian omniscient narrators would never
indulge in: The narrator expresses personal opinions, for example in the description of Sir
Walter Pole. So as to oppose a contemporary account of Sir Poles appearance, she writes:
To my mind he was not so very plain. True, his features were all extremely bad (Clarke 81).
Manufacturing truth in this way means that all that is held as true originates in the subjects
personal experience. Lapses of this kind radically subvert the integrity if the narrative voice
and make the reader uncertain of the kind of narrative s/he is reading. The three incompatible
discourses not only indicate plurality but create a paradoxical space of writing where,
however they would seem to, they do not cancel each other out.
14
II. Magic
1. Magic and history intertwined
So far I have discussed what is problematic about history and how it is represented in
Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell but now I would like to return to the other constituent part
of the simile of Mr Norrells motto: magic. In order to further explore the complex
connection between magic and history I will point out how Clarkes novel approximates the
two terms to such an extent that they frequently become almost synonymous or
interchangeable. Magic works as a metaphor of history.
This overlap or even identity between the historical and the magical, between history
and magic is exemplified through a scene in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. The authority
over explaining and interpreting history is contested: the future Lady Pole, Miss Emma
Wintertowne, expresses this in the most straightforward manner: Of course, said Miss
Wintertowne, we must have magicians. Who else can interpret Englands history to us []?
Our common historians cannot (Clarke 91). She states that magicians are more suitable to
carry out the explanation of history which means that in the reality of the book there is no
clear difference between history and magic: both have to do with the past not only as a set of
events and facts but also as a heritage, a living spirit of the community.
Causality and the way it fabricates worldviews are significant issues regarding both
magic and history. The novel provides examples where magic subverts rational causality and
performs changes in reality beyond the scope of normal understanding. Marcel Mauss, in A
General Theory of Magic, argues that magic always involves the modification of a given
state, magic is the art of changing (Mauss 61). In the novel it does not mean changes which
can be seen and followed in their course of happening but instead involves a certain change of
mental state or mindset which allows people to accept multiple variants of reality at the same
time or accept the changes without surprise8.
8 This aspect of the novel seems to qualify it as postmodern according to the system of Brian McHale in
Postmodernist Fiction, where postmodernism is defined as an ontological uncertainty concerning our world.
15
Such altering of reality is primarily related to the fairy gentleman with the thistle-
down hair. The way he lavishes Stephen Black9 with presents is exemplary of it: Poor
Stephen was assailed by miracles. Every few days something would occur to profit him in
some ways. Sometimes the actual value of what he gained was unremarkable [] but the
means by which it came to him were always extraordinary (Clarke 314)10. It is crucial that
the participants rarely know that magic is being performed. The version of the (hi)story they
know seems perfectly possible to them. When Stephen is magically transported to the
gentlemans house he shows an irrational acceptance of the represented reality: Once again
he was a little surprized but, as before, he grew accustomed to the idea in a moment and
began to look about him (Clarke 189-90).
According to Frazer, such an acceptance of the abnormal sequence of events as
meaningful characterises the worldview of primitive people they live in a world of magical
fallacies but they cannot see it. A savage hardly conceives the distinction commonly drawn
by more advanced peoples between the natural and the supernatural. To him the world is to a
great extent worked by supernatural agents (Frazer 24) 11. The way they see the world is
thoroughly saturated by magic. However, Claude Lvi-Strauss argues in The Savage Mind
that even if it [primitive thinking] is rarely directed towards facts of the same level as
those with which modern science is concerned, it implies comparable intellectual application
and methods of observation (3). For example, they possess a huge amount of abstract
knowledge concerning flora and fauna, which exceeds the concrete interest in their use (Lvi-
Strauss 4). Thus, the magical conception of the world is considered not as inferior but as on of
two parallel modes of acquiring knowledge (Lvi-Strauss 13).
9 The black servant of Sir Walter Pole. He becomes an involuntary friend of the fairy who tries to make a king of him. 10 The means include a person convinced that he met Stephen at a cockfight where they wagered on the deeds of
the Prince of Wales and now it is time that Stephen received his winnings. 11 Marcel Mauss argues similarly: the subjective association of ideas leads to the conclusion that there is an objective association of facts, or in other words that the fortuitous connexion between thoughts is equivalent to
the causal connexion between things (64).
16
Similarly, Tams Bnyei, in Apokrif iratok, analyses the relation of magical and
rational worldviews. He argues that their relation is supplementary (Bnyei 77), which means
that they cannot be clearly distinguished, and such endeavours proved to be unsuccessful or at
least dubious for anthropologists as well (Bnyei 78). Magic is resorted to as a solution for an
urging lack in realism. However, at the same time, the Nietzschean deconstruction of
causality (Bnyei 85) leads to the subversion of the supposed hierarchical relationship
between rational and magical causality: Causality, claims Nietzsche, is the retrospective
systematisation, falsification, or mythologisation in our minds of the processes of the world
(Bnyei 84). Thus, even though for Frazer magic causality [is] the mental operation that
brings together or correlates two things on the basis of an error (Bnyei 83), it is not less
faulty than rational causality: figurative (magical) causality becomes the causality par
excellence, of which rational causality is now a special case that unsuccessfully tries to deny
and suppress its figurative foundation (Bnyei 85).
For the concept of history causality is a major issue which creates an order, a system
from past events similarly to the fashion magical thinking produces order in the world.
Gyrgy Lukcs in his A trtnelmi regny examines the mechanisms of historical novels and
of writing about history. As a representative of Marxist historical theory, he found that history
is a long and gradual development with such major events as the French Revolution, for
instance, (Lukcs 28) which resulted in the break with small professional armies and also
meant that they were replaced by mass armies drafted from among ordinary people. This
massive involvement in military-political activities demanded that the nation understand the
historical context and social content of wars. It had to be contextualised why wars are
important for the development of the nation (Lukcs 23) and also that people must be made
aware of their place in the narrative course of history (Lukcs 25). Robert Youngs White
Mythologies is preoccupied with the theoretical perplexities of writing history (Young vii)
and discusses Marxist historical theory, putting emphasis on Lukcs as well. This system of
thought, Young argues, is a defence of a belief in the rationality of the historical process
17
(22) but, according to him, history has never been devoid of uncertainty: far from being the
concrete, it has always rather been the theoretical problem (23). He affirms Linda
Hutcheons views on the position of history in postmodernism as well when saying the more
general perspective of postmodernism has been widely characterized as involving a return
of history, albeit as a category of representation (23). Marxist teleological conception of
history is subject to criticism in Youngs book: what is in dispute is whether history has a
meaning as History [as] part of a larger meaning of an underlying Idea or force (22)
because this is what characterises Gyrgy Lukcss Marxist theory as well: the insistence on
history as a totality (Young 24) where history is self-evident and needs no elaboration
, [it is] an outside, a concrete, that somehow remains exterior to theory, unaffected by it
(Young 22).
Perhaps it is not too far-fetched to parallel this kind of firm belief in the ideological,
metaphysical sense that history makes with the supernatural causality of primitive people.12
Hayden Whites theory of emplotment and representation also points out the fallacies in the
way historical accounts are created: arbitrary emphases and exclusions are the realisations of
pre-generic plot structures (The Burden 72) and certain mythical themes. Through this
coding process, which always reflects the culture it is born in, the myths and archetypes are
rewritten again and again. This mythicised history and historical causality are not so distant
from the strategies of what anthropologists regarded as magical.
12 As Evans-Pritchard describes it in Theories of Primitive Religion: Primitive thought is orientated towards the supernatural [they] do not inquire into objective causal connexions , they are prevented from doing so by their collective representations, which are prelogical and mystical (80-81).
18
2. Magic as discourse
For all its centrality, magic as a legitimate means of interpreting the human experience
of history is by no means presented as a homogeneous system of thought in Clarkes novel:
one of the key elements is precisely the debate between Mr Norrell and Jonathan Strange over
the principles of their attitude to magic. It has to be noted first that the contrast between their
attitudes goes beyond personal opinions and can be described rather as the contrast between
two discrepant discourses. They do not only disagree about the features of magic but
conceptualise it as a different object. What Clarkes novel does here and throughout the novel
is the conceptualisation of magic as a discourse in Michel Foucaults sense of the word.
Sara Mills quotes Foucaults definition when saying discourse is not a group of signs or a
stretch of text but practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak
(Mills 17). There are three factors which can define two sets of ideas as two different
discourses: the factors of truth, power and knowledge (Mills 18). For Foucault a discourse
means the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true from false
statements (Mills 18). In the case of the two magicians this means not that they disagree
about a particular object: for the two of them magic is a completely different discourse.
Thus, Norrell says I cannot consider his [John Uskglasss] influence upon English magic
as any thing other than deplorable (Clarke 71), while Strange writes: It is JOHN
USKGLASSs magic that we do (Clarke 532). The basis, the centre from where truth can be
enunciated is the second factor, the factor of power, the condition of production of all
speech (Mills 20). Power determines what can be said but, in the Foucauldian sense, not
necessarily in a negative sense. Different truths are inherently derived from different
conditions of power. Instances of power (education, law, the media) become major issues
when it comes to differences between Norrell and Strange and it is Norrell who is oriented
towards these forms of power. The third factor, knowledge is the result or the effect of power
struggles (Mills 21). Constructing, sharing and withholding knowledge is a serious problem
for Norrell; I have already pointed out how he strives to obtain every single book which is
19
concerned with magic and magical history. In the next section I will discuss these issues in
detail, here I only mentioned them in order to position the Strangite-Norrellite difference in
the terminology of discourse.
The character of Childermass gives a twist to the problem of discourses. Even though
Jonathan Strange wants to free magic from the discourse of Norrell, he cannot but form
another discourse. One of his principles is that magic should be available to everyone
interested but another one is to oppose his former teachers views. He is optimistic about the
outcomes of this struggle: In the struggle to decide the character of English magic the sides
will be unevenly matched. There will only be one Norrellite magician and dozens of Strangite
magicians. Or at least, as many as I can educate (Clarke 703). However, it follows from
Stranges principles that, paradoxically, the so-called Strangites would not be like Strange
or only inasmuch as they would contradict their master and have their own ideas of what
magic is. It is only Childermass who is situated outside of these discourses, in fact, he is the
figure of the irreparable break between the two discourses that cannot be reconciled. This is
not only a mere desire for a chance to choose but a radical position between discourses, in the
clash between discourses. When Jonathan Strange asks him to leave Norrells service he turns
down the offer and explains his decision as follows: But then I would be obliged to agree
with you, sir, would I not? [] I tell you what I will do. I will make you a promise. If you fail
and Mr Norrell wins, then I will indeed leave his service. I will take up your cause, oppose
him with all my might and find arguments to vex him and then there shall still be two
magicians in England and two opinions on magic (Clarke 699).
20
3. Primitive magic
However, Norrell and Strange are still there as the two magicians. I will discuss first
Jonathan Stranges discourse of magic which shows several similarities with primitive magic
in the anthropological sense. It has already been suggested that magic cannot be distinguished
from a certain magical worldview. In Theories of Primitive Religion Evans-Pritchard quotes
Lvy-Bruhl who argues that in what he calls the primitive mentality objects and beings are
all involved in a network of mystical participations and exclusions (Evans-Pritchard 80). The
prelogical, unintelligible (Evans-Pritchard 81) thinking of the savage is definitely a
fallacy from the perspective of anthropology but in the world of Clarkes novel it is absolutely
real. In one of the final chapters Stephen Black gains the power to talk to and give orders to
basically all entities and even abstract notions of the world. He starts to perceive the world
from a new perspective which originates in a totally different conceptualisation of reality,
similarly to primitive thinking. and everything changed the world became a kind of
puzzle or labyrinth suddenly everything had meaning. Stephen hardly dared take another
step. If he did so if, for example, he stepped into that shadow or that spot of light, then the
world might be forever altered (Clarke 981). Basically, magic is a world-view that does not
tolerate lack or absence of meaning: every element of the world is meaningful.
Evans-Pritchard also discusses Sigmund Freuds perspective: from his psychological
point of view magicians are considered as cases of neurosis: the neurotic is like the savage in
that he believes he can change the outer world by a mere thought of his (Evans-Pritchard
41). The omnipotence of thought is exemplified in the scene where Strange visits King
George. He intends to cure the King of his mental illness using a book of magic which he
does not understand and thus he does not know how to perform the piece of magic that would
seem appropriate: Place the moon at my eyes and her whiteness shall devour the false sights
the deceiver has placed there How was the magician supposed to fetch the moon to the
afflicted person? (Clarke 447-48). However, when he actually recites the words only in his
thoughts! magic takes effect: The moons scarred white disc appeared suddenly not in
21
the sky but somewhere else it was inside his own head (Clarke 463). Merely through
thinking, magic is able to perform changes impossible by physical means. Strange forms
reality by a mere thought of his. Conclusively, even though the anthropological view
illuminates the workings of magic, the verdict which Frazer sums up as magic is a spurious
system of natural law as well as a fallacious guide of conduct; it is a false science (Frazer 26)
is not applicable to the magical reality of the book as it is very much a reality.
The animistic view of magic, according to which every entity possesses a soul, will be
described as something approved of by Strange but rejected by Norrell in the next section;
here I only want to indicate how it is present in the anthropological theory of mile
Durkheim. He argues that a primitive person , similarly to children, cannot differentiate
between animate and inanimate and tends to endow inanimate objects with a nature similar
to his own (Durkheim 59 my translation). Even though he is criticised for the
inapplicability of his theory to real tribal rites in our world (Evans-Pritchard 67), it suits the
reality of Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. Similarly, the view that a magical phase always
precedes religion was heavily debated by actual anthropologists (Evans-Pritchard 30) but it is
the very case in Clarkes novel. That is why I find that theories of primitive religion are
applicable it to the magical discourses in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. I will return to
this point when I discuss the position of fairies and Christianity in the novel.
According to Evans-Pritchard, primitive magic is inherently associated with such
social factors as a closed community, hereditary transmission, and a sense of being obligatory
(Evans-Pritchard 54). These three factors are summed up in the character of Childermass and
in his attachment to the Northern Kingdom13. The North is where devotion to the Raven
King is still very strong as it is part of their cultural heritage to wait for his return. The
Northern English are aware of their status as John Uskglasss own nation that separates
them from all other Englishmen. Marcel Mauss also analyses this social sense of magic. He
13 You are in the north now. In John Uskglasss own country He is in our minds and hearts and speech I am a North Englishman Nothing would please me better than that my King should come home. It is what I have wished for all my life (Clarke 914).
22
argues that magical practices are traditional facts: if the whole community does not believe in
the efficacy, they cannot be magical (19).
The character of the Raven King, the object of devotion, can be identified with
Frazers priestly king theory: In those days the divinity that hedges a king was no empty
form of speech, but the expression of a sober belief kings are often expected to give rain
and sunshine in due season, to make the crops grow (Frazer 24). The ability to control the
weather is exemplified in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by the Raven Kings quarrel with
and banishment of Winter from England for four years which resulted in a continual summer
(Clarke 530-31). His figure is also symbolic, similarly to kings in dualist monarchies where
two kings ruled, one with administrative and the other with ritual and symbolic roles (Frazer
22). There were such positions in ancient Rome (the Sacrificial King) or in Sparta (Zeus
Uranius the heavenly Zeus). The symbolic nature of the Raven King surfaces, for example,
in his lack of a real name. He was called Starling in the land of Fairie and he took to calling
himself by his fathers name John dUskglass and he had other names like the King, the
Raven King, the Black King, the King in the North but he did not have a proper name, which
positions him outside the limits of average people and makes his figure symbolic (Clarke
641). He is also identified with a totemic animal, the raven, which is used in his magic and in
his iconography: The books all turned into ravens He used it often, you know that chaos
of black birds (Clarke961). The raven as a totemic animal appears in John Uskglasss arms
the Raven-in-Flight (properly called the Raven Volant), a black raven in a white field
(Clarke 672). This totemic quality is identified in Durkheims theory as the basic form of
primitive clan cults as well. He writes: there has to be another, more elementary, more
primitive cult which ethnographers call totemism (89 my translation). If we consider the
raven as the totemic animal of the North, it is important to see what characteristics are
endowed upon it. Consulting Szimblumtr by Jzsef Pl and Edit jvri, I found that the
raven is seen by the Greeks as an exceptionally clever bird and possessor of the ability of
divination and it is also the emblem of initiation in the cult of Mithras (Pl and jvri). The
23
raven appears also in Native American mythology as a trickster figure but I will discuss the
presence of the trickster in Clarkes novel later in my paper. These aspects of the raven, as
found in Szimblumtr, can be linked to magical knowledge and initiation in the case of the
Raven Kings magic.
Marc Blochs Les Rois Thaumaturges (The Royal Touch: Monarchy and Miracles in
France and England) provides a link between Frazers theory of primitive magic and the rites
related to the healing ability of medieval kings (Bloch 96-97). This link is important because
it shows that Clarkes novel fits into a more recent European tradition of magic and also
because this kind of priestly-kingly magic can be identified in the character of the Raven King
as well. Bloch writes that Henry II was capable of curing the plague by touch and he did use
his power regularly as a duty for his people (Bloch 87). It is interesting how Jonathan Strange
and Mr Norrell plays with this tradition: the Raven King was a contemporary of Henry II but
John Uskglass overshadows Henrys simple form of healing. He built a mystical tall black
tower which protected the Northern Kingdom against the Black Death (Clarke 531). The
Raven King realised the ultimate way of healing ability while almost mocking the tradition of
non-magician kings.
In The Myth of the Magus, E. M. Butler creates a framework of the duties of the tribal
magician which recalls the duties of Norrell and Strange. They are requested to perform
for the benefit of the tribe or community by means of magic (Butler 4), that is, to use their
magic in the wars with Napoleon. However, apart from certain pieces of magic14, Mr Norrell
prefers to give long, difficult explanations of why something was not possible (Clarke 223).
Similarly, it is Strange who dares to participate in the Peninsular war while Norrell stays in
England. The fact that magic can be used in war is explained by E. E. Evans-Pritchard in
Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande. He argues that the moral nature of the
14 Such as ships made of rain to scare the French (Clarke 131) or the interrogation of the figurehead of a ship
(Clarke 138).
24
more important medicines15 is generally a condition of its use, i.e. if used out of spite it may
kill its owner (Witchcraft 406). Magic is considered good or evil on moral grounds, on the
basis of motivation; thus good magic may be destructive, even lethal, but it strikes only at
persons who have committed a crime (Witchcraft 388). This is applicable to the crime of
being the enemy of England in Clarkes novel. Butler attributes further significance to tribal
magicians: they are supposed to wield power over life and death (Butler 6) which, in fact,
both Norrell and Strange do16. They also control nature17 and have knowledge of future or
distant events (Butler 6-7)18. Their usefulness in the community points to Mausss theory,
according to which magic is performed by specialists (25): in the novel magic is a decent
profession in England (even if only it is magical theory in most cases) and it is so for Strange
at first who searched for a decent profession before choosing magic19. Apart from practical,
useful magic, tribal magicians also performed for the sake of display, as mere manifestations
of power (Butler 5). Both Mr Norrell are frequently asked to do magic as entertainment at
social gatherings: while Norrell usually refuses to do so, Strange would generally oblige the
company with a shew of one of the minor sorts of magic. The most popular magic he did was
to cause visions to appear upon the surface of water (Clarke 328).
A final feature of primitive magicians is mentioned by Evans-Pritchard: they can be
critical and sceptical, and even experimental, within the system of their beliefs (Evans-
Pritchard 29). First Jonathan Strange astonishes Mr Honeyfoot, another theoretical magician,
with his bold use of magic: Good God! cried Mr Honeyfoot. Do you mean to say that
practically all this magic was your own invention? (Clarke 276). Strange also expresses his
views to Mr Norrell: Come, Mr Norrell, he whispered. It is very dull working for Lord
15 Medicine is any object in which mystical power is supposed to reside and which is used in magic rites (Witchcraft 9). 16 Norrell resurrects Lady Pole (Clarke 115) and Strange brings seventeen dead Neapolitans back to life (Clarke
422). 17 For example, Strange changes the channels and shoals in Spithead, Portsmouth by turning the shoal into horses
(Clarke 353). 18 The two magicians use a silver basin to divinate. According to Norrell, a magicians needs nothing but a silver basin for seeing visions in (Clarke 136). 19 Prior to fixing on magic, Strange thinks he might seek out a destitute poetic genius and become his patron; he thought he would study law; look for fossils on the beach at Lyme Regis (Clarke 244-45), etc.
25
Liverpool Let you and me do something extraordinary! Clarke 956). Even Stranges
first piece of magic done for Norrell is individualistic, it lacks theoretical background20. He
cannot explain his acts either: I have only the haziest notion of what I did. I dare say it is just
the same with you, sir, one has a sensation like music playing at the back of ones head one
simply knows what the next note will be (Clarke 295).
Further examples of the actual practice of magic mirror the system of primitive magic,
described by Frazer, concerning the laws of similarity and contact (Frazer 26). These are also
connected to Strange and not to Norrell. The metaphorical, homeopathic kind of magic is
present when Mr Segundus21 enters a garden where Jonathan Stranges magic is already in
progress. He suddenly starts seeing images or representations of people and places
everywhere: he realized that what he had taken for a friend was in fact was only a shadow on
the surface of a rose bush. The mans head was only a spray of pale roses and his hand
another the place was only a chance conjunction of a yellow bush, some swaying elder
branches and the sharp, sunlit corner of the house (Clarke 271). These images become
elements of magic, even though they are not used in the practice of magic in a strict sense:
they are representations of magic itself.
The metonymic, contagious type of magic is exemplified by the scene when Jonathan
Strange revives dead Neapolitan soldiers during the Peninsular War. He cuts his own arm and
when he had got a good strong spurt of blood, he let it splash over the heads of the corpses
(Clarke 423) When Strange realises that the revived Neapolitan speaks only a dialect of Hell,
he pulled open its jabbering jaws and spat inside its mouth. Instantly it began to speak in its
native, earthly language (Clarke 424). By sharing pieces of his living body (blood and
saliva) he affects their life by the law of contact.
Perhaps the most important respect in which Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell
resembles primitive magic concerns its system: primitive religion (and magic in this sense)
20 It involves running his hands through his hair, clasping the back of his neck and stretching his shoulders and
so, as the result of these, a book and its reflection in a mirror change place (Clarke 294). 21 Mr Segundus is a theoretical magician with an unexpected sensitivity to real magic.
26
does not have creeds or dogmas (Evans-Pritchard 53). Magical books rarely put down rules or
regulations, they describe the practice instead. In magic and religion the individual does not
reason, or if he does his reasoning is unconscious he has no need to reflect on the structure
of his rite in order to practise it, as Marcel Mauss argues similarly (75). Gilbert Norrell
confronts this tradition: his aim is to establish such dogmas and this places him a different
discourse.
4. Magic as institution
In terms of its cultural role, it is possible to identify Gilbert Norrells magic in terms of
alchemy rather than primitive magic, that is. Ivn Fnagy in his A mgia s a titkos
tudomnyok trtnete draws attention to the difference between primitive spiritual magic and
the science-magic-religion of alchemy. In primitive cultures, as we have seen, entities are
considered alive and a soul is attributed to them. In alchemy it is the matter, the material that
lives a life and its magicality is also material (Fnagy 185). Furthermore, alchemy is heavily
characterised by secrecy. Alchemists themselves worked in secret, especially after Pope John
XII prohibited alchemy for ecclesiastical and secular persons as well (Fnagy 137), but even
the books written by and for alchemists were obsessed with secrets: while a printed book
means that it can be copied freely and it can reach anybody without the control and consent of
the author, these books generally are written in a manner of a private, whispered conversation
between the author and the reader (Fnagy 178).
These two characteristics of alchemy are found in Norrells discourse of magic. It
conceptualises magic as something inherently rational, controllable, almost materially earthly.
Norrell rejects the Raven King, fairies and the animistic, magical status of entities. He
exclaims: Mystical ramblings about stones and rain and trees! This is like Godbless who told
27
us that we should learn magic from wild beasts in the forest. Why not pigs in the sty? Or stray
dogs, I wonder? (Clarke 154)22.
The second characteristic, that is, secrecy, is closely related to the institutional nature
of Norrellite magic. He desires to realise magic as a secret available only to those initiates
inside the limits of his institution. Gilbert Norrells desire is to keep the authority over magic
to himself by various means. For him magic (and the history of magic) is a firm institution
with clearly defined functions such as education. Teaching Jonathan Strange, however deep
their special attachment becomes over time, basically means imposing his ideas on his pupil.
Also, he would like to write a book on the topic of education entitled Precepts for the
Education of a Magician which he apparently does not manage to complete before the end of
the novel. Apart from writing books, he also collects books in an authoritative manner. As it
has been discussed before, he intends to keep knowledge for himself while producing truth
from the framework of his institutions of power. Furthermore, as a similar means of creating
margins for magic, Norrell intends to establish the legislative framework for magical
practices, that is, he would like to restore a court called the Cinque Dragownes (The Five
Dragons)23. This form of institution would be part of the extensive process of codification he
wishes to impose. Finally, Norrell imposes his authority over the power of media as well. He
publishes a periodical titled The Friends of English Magic and it is explicitly declared that he
is aware of the authoritative nature of media: Mr Norrell wished The Friends of English
Magic first to impress upon the British Public the great importance of English modern magic,
secondly to correct erroneous views of magical history and thirdly to vilify those magicians
and classes of magicians whom he hated (Clarke 146).
As it has been stated, Mr Norrell always seeks a single, declarative Truth, that is, a
single official representation of magic and magical history, and the whole process of
institutionalisation indicates this wish. However, the problem with this is more complex as he
22 Thomas Godbless is an Aureate magician, follower of John Uskglass, whom Mr Norrell also detests. 23 This court dealt with magical crimes throughout the active ages of magic.
28
does not only reject other representations of the history of magic but the represented itself as
well. For him the represented is not only absent but desired to be completely lost and
forgotten. Even though he, as a young man, desired to meet the King, the disappointment that
followed made Norrell give up his hopes. This is how Norrell formulates his intentions
concerning the future: Magic cannot wait upon the pleasure of a king who no longer cares
what happens to England. We must break English magicians of their dependence on him. We
must make them forget John Uskglass as completely as he has forgotten us (Clarke 539).
29
III. The dichotomy of Nature and Culture
1. A Rousseauian text
The difference between Stranges and Norrells attitude to magic can also be read in
terms of the dichotomy of Nature and Culture. In Of Grammatology, Jacques Derrida applies
deconstruction to the texts and thinking of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. For Rousseau there is a
binary opposition between an ideal, ancient, natural state and corrupt human culture; between
speech and writing, presence and absence. Derridas analysis shows that Culture, as a
supplement, is not added to a complete and self-sufficient Nature but fills a void in Nature
when being added to it: there is lack in Nature and because of that very fact something is
added to it (Derrida 149). Thus, Culture cannot be removed from Nature in the sense of
nostalgic return.
Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell (especially through the magic of fairies, the Raven
King and even Jonathan Strange) can be read as a Rousseauian text in terms Derridas
analysis. Through Strange the novel expresses a desire of return to Nature and the abolition of
the dichotomy by magic. Fnagy writes that the philosophy that considers body and soul,
matter and spirit as irreconcilable eternal oppositions is rigid and sad (Fnagy 193 my
translation). Neo-Platonist thinking sees the possibility of reaching a certain desired truth or
idyllic state the way gold is separated from slag. Fnagy writes: gold is blended with slag;
first we must wash it out, wash the clear meaning of sentences out from the shades (Fnagy
195 my translation). This symbolises the process of reaching a speech-like true meaning by
removing a writing-supplement. Derrida demonstrates the impossibility of this but while our
reality renders it impossible to return to an idyllic Nature, Clarkes novel introduces the
desired state as something reachable through magic.
30
2. Nature: feared and desired
The distance between Culture and Nature also generates a negative attitude to Nature.
As Derrida writes, the supplement holds it [the presence] at a distance and masters it. For
this presence is at the same time desired and feared. (Derrida 155) In Clarkes novel, as I
have argued, Mr Norrell rejects any connection to Nature as the distant past and everything
related to it, but throughout the novel one can find instances of the fearsome rejection of
Nature-related magic, behaviour and thinking. This shows that the supplement is valued
highly, more highly than the feared and desired presence it supplements.
One of the fields where this opposition of fear and desire surfaces in the novel is the
issue of being a proper Englishman. Jonathan Strange and the magical events he becomes
more and more involved in are often seen as non-English or non-gentlemanly. In Stranges
wildness one sees this distancing from gentlemanly standards which intensifies after he has
separated from Norrell and starts to search for new (or rather, at the same time, more ancient),
non-Norrellite modes of magic originating in Aureate magic24. Those magicians could, for
example, change their shape and turn into animals, trees or rivers. Upon hearing about this,
Sir Walter25 is surprised and says: But surely, Strange, you would not want to practise it? A
gentleman cannot change his shape. A gentleman scorns to seem any thing other than what he
is (Clarke 684). Butler, in The Myth of the Magus, writes that the Archbishop of Canterbury
declared, in the late 7th century, that transforming into animals was to be punished (Butler
113). This indicates the cutting of connections with Nature and a fear of losing the external
features of social and cultural status26.
24 Aureate or Golden Age magicians were those of the era of John Uskglass, the Raven King. They habitually
employed fairy-servants and their magical abilities were very great. 25 Sir Walter Pole is a government minister. He is a close friend of Jonathan Strange and the master of Stephen
Black. 26 The character of Jonathan Strange (and his approach to culture and nature) can also be read as a representation
of the figure of the Romantic artist: the poetic genius who values highly the wildness, danger and originality of
art. Thus, the contrast between Strange and Norrell can be discussed in terms of a difference between
Romanticism and Enlightenment with Norrell as representative of the latter: respectful of unchangeable ancient
values and achievements, preferring reason to emotionality and traditions to originality.
31
The objection to transformation also reveals a shift of discourses: magic passes from
its own discursive field to another, to the discourse of class. This contrasts with the way
primitive magicians do their magic. Evans-Pritchard writes that Zande ritual acts are
performed with a minimum publicity (424) and in most cases the Azande would not even
admit that they are involved in magic. The fact that Norrell and Strange become social figures
(even if Strange is more successful in his ways with people27) creates a paradox. They both
digress from the marginal, outcast character of the tribal magician and also differ from the
way the Raven King is perceived and therefore judged from the 19th-century perspective on
magic. The representations of John Uskglass show that he is identified with the feared and
rejected aspects of Nature.
The first one can be found in the prologue of Jonathan Stranges The History and
Practice of English Magic. It is an account of his first meeting with Henry I, King of England,
recounting how astonished Henry was when he met John Uskglass. The Raven King was
scarcely civilized. He had never seen a spoon before, nor a chair or and iron kettle, nor a
silver penny, nor a wax candle (Clarke 641). He, only a fifteen-year-old boy at that time,
could speak neither English nor French and his hair was full of lice. This definitely
uncivilised image of the King of the North is considerably milder at the end of the novel when
Childermass meets him. His dark clothes were clearly expensive and looked fashionable. Yet
his straight, dark hair was longer than any fashionable gentleman would have worn it; it gave
him something of the look of a Methodist preacher or a Romantic poet (Clarke 970).
Equating him with Methodism and Romanticism both indicate an Otherness. Methodism
was a revivalist movement at the end of the 18th century which sought to reform the Church of
England. Alongside with Romantic poetry, it symbolises opposing authoritative norms,
rejecting rationalised faith and the science-centred conception of nature. John Uskglass does
not fit into the 19th-century English cultural system. What Rousseau writes about himself is
27 London preferred Mr Strange. Strange was everyones idea of what a magician ought to be. He was tall; he was charming; he had a most ironical smile; and unlike Mr Norrell, he talked a great deal about magic (Clarke 328).
32
applicable to his character: I renounce my present life, my present and concrete existence in
order to make myself known in the ideality of truth and value (qtd. in Derrida 142). Even if
he is admired throughout the country, he is celebrated only as a distant entity.
The second, a visual representation of the King of the North appears on a dual painting
of two kings of England: Edward III of Southern England and John Uskglass. While the
Southern king is shown in shining light, the Northern one remains in twilight with stars
around him. Also, the kings are accompanied by different characters: Edward is sitting
amongst heroes and gods in shining armour while the Raven King is surrounded by different
entities: His entourage was composed largely of magical creatures: a phoenix, a unicorn, a
manticore, fauns and satyrs. But there were also some mysterious persons: a male figure in a
monklike robe with his hood pulled down over his face, a female figure in a dark, starry
mantle with her arm thrown over her eyes. (Clarke 442) The representations show that both
kings are related to magical-mystical entities but light and dark are opposed, the civilised,
human, warlike deities with shining armour are contrasted with the magical beasts of a
magical Nature and with those creatures which are in a natural setting in mythology. Thus,
even magic and mythology are internally divided in terms of Nature and Culture.
There is another image of magic that bears comparison to that of John Uskglass. When
Gilbert Norrell appears in London he is surrounded by admirers, and a printmaker called
Holland makes an engraving entitled The Spirit of English Magic urges Mr Norrell to the Aid
of Britannia. The engraving shewed Mr Norrell in the company of a young lady, scantily
dressed in a loose smock. A great quantity of stiff, dark material swirled and coiled about the
young ladys body without ever actually touching it and, for the further embellishment of her
person, she wore a crescent moon tucked in among the tumbling locks of her hair (Clarke
139).
This image becomes problematic in terms of gentlemanly magic: here English
Magic is seen as a woman, as the object of gentleman magicians, and she is shown as the
most archetypically sexual female person with the loose hair and loose clothing, crowned by
33
the symbol of the crescent moon. Summarising the two representations described above, one
can draw the conclusion that magic is dark, feminine, ancient and mysterious nothing could
be farther from what is perceived as proper English mentality.
3. Fairies: a natural culture
More than the Raven King, more than the madness of Jonathan Strange, fairies can be
considered as the true counterpart of proper, modern English culture. The fairies of Clarkes
novel resemble the medieval conception of the fairy folk which acquired todays form28 only
in the 17th century (Thomas 609). Medieval fairies are neither small nor particularly kindly
but rather highly malevolent who are to be feared (Thomas 606-07). They are valuable
sources of supernatural power (Thomas 608), just like Strange perceives them. Thomas
writes that fairies were sought out for help by magicians, for example William Lilly29 took
part in several attempts to get in touch with the Queen of the Fairies, believing that she could
teach anything one desired to know (608). Clarkes novel presents not only this attitude but
also another significant characteristic of fairy lore: they are always already attributed to the
past, to a certain less civilised state, just as Nature is distanced and deferred30.
Thus, fairies, as related to Nature, embody certain features that are unacceptable by the
standards of Culture. For instance, when Jonathan Strange visits the mad King George he
must face the magic of the gentleman with the thistle-down hair. The King is enchanted and
urged to enter a curious wood that appears magically. The wood no longer struck Strange as
a welcoming place. It appeared to him now as it had at first sinister, unknowable,
unEnglish (Clarke 463). The word unEnglish suggests that the basic characteristic of the
fairy-wood is the negation of Christian Englishness.
28 Fairies are the little people who dance on grass fairy-rings and if provided with food and water, they help in domestic chores (Thomas 609-10). 29 William Lilly (1602 1681), was a famed English astrologer. 30 Elizabethans tended to speak as if fairy-beliefs were a thing of the past yet in the late seventeenth century Sir William Temple could assume that fairy beliefs had only declined in the previous thirty years or so (Thomas 607).
34
The difference between fairies and humans surfaces in their mental capacity as well:
men and fairies both contain within them a faculty of reason and a faculty of magic. In men
reason is strong and magic is weak. With fairies it is the other way round: magic comes very
naturally to them, but by human standards they are barely sane (Clarke 299). Moreover,
according to English magicians, they are naturally wicked creatures who did not always
know when they were going wrong (Clarke 17). By making the wickedness of fairies
natural they are irredeemably fated to be like that. This conception of behaviour mostly
resembles theories of criminal pathology of the late 19th century. Fairies, just like criminals,
are doomed to wrongdoing. Even Jonathan Strange shares this opinion: "Wicked, wicked!
And then again, perhaps not so wicked after all- for what does he do but follow his nature?"
(Clarke 810). However, the core of this discourse is that criminals and fairies are like
children in their reduced reasoning capacities. Derrida finds that for Rousseau it was
childhood that makes the supplement appear in nature (Derrida 147), as children
unquestionably need culture for it is indeed culture or cultivation that must supplement a
deficient nature (Derrida 146). This thinking also explains why fairies are depicted as
naughty: if children and fairies gain more power than natural or advisable, they
become tiresome, masterful, imperious, naughty and unmanageable (Derrida 147).
Thus, fairies need cultivation and control again, in the discourse of 19th-century
imperial colonial theory. The lack of this control leads to the current state of the land of
Fairie: while in England only magic is in decline but reason-based culture is flourishing, in
Fairie everything is falling apart for magic is the essence of the land. Mr Norrell remarks: I
assure you, Mr Strange, nowhere is the decline of English magic better understood than in the
Other Lands (Clarke 300). Fairies have always lived like half-savages and have always
needed human beings to rule over them in order to make their kingdoms function. For
instance, Stephen Blacks arrival to the castle of Lost-hope generates an enormous change in
the appearance of the land. His rule marks the beginning of a more reasonable and peaceful
era. That Culture is seen as something that can and must master Nature is what Derrida
35
suggests: supplement will always be the moving of the tongue or acting through the hands of
others (Derrida 147). This concept of necessary control is the self-legitimising image of the
coloniser who justifies his actions with projecting every negative feature to the nature of the
colonised. It is most ironical, however, that the coloniser is black in this case.
In the sense of naughtiness, fairies can also be identified with the figure of the
trickster. American Indian Myths and Legends provides a thorough description of tricksters in
Native American mythology which recalls the for fairies in Clarkes novel. The trickster, for
American Indians, is not simply a lowly, small and poor figure who plays tricks on the
proud, big, and rich but at the same time imp and hero the great culture bringer who can
also make mischief beyond belief, turning quickly from clown to creator and back again
(Erdoes and Ortiz 335). The fairy of Susanna Clarkes mythology is similar: although fairies
are despised and considered as lowly by, for instance, Norrells way of thinking, Strange
would never deny their importance. Most of the North American tales bear witness to his
cleverness alternating with buffoonery, his lechery, his craft in cheating and destroying his
enemy (Erdoes and Ortiz 335). These aspects of the trickster are identifiable in the fairy
gentleman with the thistle-down hair. Even though it is mostly he who praises himself, he is
indeed clever, for example, when he finds out Stephen Blacks real name which was lost
when his mother died31: now you will observe with what cleverness and finesse I traced
the passage of each part of her through the world (Clarke 945). However, he can be a fool
occasionally, mostly when he cannot understand the mechanisms of society that is why he is
constantly trying to make a king out of Stephen: Let you and I go immediately to the King of
England. Then you can put him to death and be King in his place! (Clarke 942). The lechery
of the fairy is less explicit in the novel, it is more Victorian, but when compared to the
average English gentleman he can be considered as lecherous: You and I, Stephen, know
how to appreciate the society of such a woman. He [Strange] does not (Clarke 797). Finally,
31 It is possible only by finding certain items magically related to her mother: With the ashes that were her screams and the pearls that were her bones and the counterpane that was her gown and the magical essence of
her kiss, I was able to divine your name (Clarke 948).
36
he loves fighting and destroying his enemies: But then you see I am very adept at killing all
sorts of things! I have slain dragons, drowned armies and persuaded the earthquakes and
tempests to devour cities! (Clarke 949). Also, tricksters (and fairies as tricksters) represent
some primordial creativity from our earlier days , the potency of nothingness, of chaos, of
freedom Erdoes and Ortiz 335) they are closely related to the ancient present, to Nature.
4. Magic and Christianity
There is a significant distinction between fairies and humans with respect to their
connection to Christianity. Human beings are called Christians by fairies, as a common
name for our race. Their not being Christians, however, is not limited to names. The Church
has very strict doctrines concerning fairies which can be found in one of the footnotes already
quoted. Fairies (as everybody knows) are beyond the reach of the Church; no Christ has
come to them, nor ever will and what is to become of them on Judgement Day no one
knows (Clarke 17). There are numerous examples that somehow magic and religion are
incompatible and necessarily hostile to each other. For example, Strange claims that he cannot
do magic in the vicinity of the Host (Clarke 774), and it is related in the novel how the pages
of the Bible, belonging to a certain Scrope Davies (a friend of Lord Byrons), protected some
letters of Byron, regarding Strange, from Norrells magic. Though he [Davies] was entirely
ignorant