The daughters of the late Colonel; Jane Mansfield

THE DAUGHTERS OF THE LATE COLONEL, by Jane Mansfield
THE EMPIRE
The Late Colonel's family had a history of living and working in one of the colonies. The empire is
present in the house where the old retired officer lived. Thanks to Katherine Mansfield's subtle touches
we picture a house full of memories of Ceylon: A photograph of a mother who had been killed by a
snake long before they were grown−ups and which shows her ear rings shaped like tiny pagodas; the
horrible dancing figures on the carved screen, the Indian carpet, Constantia's favourite Buddah. Also
the mention of the 23 letters with the notice in them which they had to post to Ceylon, the mention of
father's Anglo−Indian friends, their brother Benny, whose wife they had never met, whom they picture
in the veranda, dressed all in white and wearing a cork helmet and to whom they won't send father's
watch "for men so seldom wear waistcoats in those hot climates". When Constantia wants to get away
from the painful realities of this world, she gazes "away, away, far over the desert, to where that lines of
camels unwound like a thread of wool". Last but not least the pervading influence of the retired colonel
who was in control of his daughters in the same hard military way as he had commanded his troops.
All these allusions to the empire show the writer's intention to portray the attitude of the British
middle/ upper class towards people living in the Empire. The writer masterfully depicts the patronising
attitude that the British had to their subjects overseas. This is shown when both sisters start thinking
who they should give their father's watch to. They express their contempt to the so−called mail service
of Ceylon, at that time a British colony, saying that such does not exist at all. It merely consists of
runners taking ages to deliver parcels. They imagine parcels are delivered by natives who are not to be
trusted. On the other hand, their brother Benny (the Englishman) is impressively visualised standing on
the veranda, dressed in white waiting for the "native" to bring the parcel he so much desires to get.
THE SISTERS
These sisters are two middle−aged ladies who have lived their whole lives under the hand of an
authoritarian father; secondly, that they grew up in an empire (some letters had to catch the `Ceylon
mail', `would you trust a gold watch to a native?') and under very tight conventions (`But nobody sees
us', and they couldn't have a `little communion' because they were not in a church, and about the
funeral `One suitable to our father's position').
It is really amusing how Mansfield portrays these two sisters who are at a loss after their iron handed
father's death. In the first part of the story, the reader concludes that both Constantia and Josephine
are quite immature, not to say childish. Right from the start we are presented with hilarious comments
about giving the porter a top− hat ("father's head!") and their absurd conclusions about the need of
dyeing their dressing gowns and having to wear, as Josephine pictures "...two pairs of black woolly
slippers, creeping off to the bathroom like black cats."
Their shortcomings are emphasised in the second part, as we see them intimidated by the nurse and
incapable of asserting themselves as the ladies of the house with regard to their cheeky maid − "She
snatched away their plates... and slapped down a white, terrified blancmange". Neither of them can
speak their minds but their attitudes differ. While Josephine makes a mild attempt to put a brake to the
Nurse: "I think those things are very extravagant", Con shuns: "... and she gazed away−away−far over
the desert, to where the lines of camels unwound like a thread of wool". Her dreamy nature is further
confirmed, in contrast with the more practical Josephine "Constantia in despair went back to her
camels" , while her sister thinks hard and comes with a solution: "I know...Marmalade. There's some
marmalade in the sideboard".
1
For the sake of brevity, I shall not dwell on the many more examples of their meekness and their fear of
their father when they try to go through his things, which Mansfield conveys in a really hilarious style.
However, the flashback of their nephew's visit merits some comment, as it shows clearly how dull their
lives are and how unusual it is for these women to have company "Cyril to tea was one of their rare
treats". It is pathetic to read that they sacrificed their needs to buy the delicacies which he didn't even
taste "...the rich dark cake that stood for her winter gloves or the soling and heeling of Constantia's
only respectable shoes".
Another eloquent portrayal of the sister's different characters is given by their thoughts in the last part
of the story. Josephine reflects sensibly, she remembers her mother and wonders "If mother had lived,
might they have married?" and "How did one meet men? Or even if they'd met them, how could they
have got to know men well enough to be more than strangers?". All her life has been subjected to her
father's command: "The rest had been looking after father, and at the same time keeping out of
father's way. But now? But now?". Constantia, on her part, experiences feelings and emotions that she
will never reveal, as shown by her attitude towards the Buddha and her recollection of how she used to
get out of bed in the middle of the night to lie on the floor "...with her arms outstretched, as though she
was crucified...The big pale moon had made her do it". It appears that in this part of the story
Mansfield ultimately suggests that this woman is suffocated by a sexual repression that she cannot even
allow to appear in her fantasies. "What was it she was always wanting? What did it all lead to? Now?
Now?". She has endured her wretched existence by making her dreams and fantasies the actual
protagonists of her life, while "...arranging father's trays and trying not to annoy father. ... seemed to
have happened in a kind of tunnel. It wasn't real"; her moments alone enjoying her senses are her real
life.
And then, the hidden feeling of freedom, hidden probably because it wasn't proper, when the organ
grinder starts playing and they don't have to stop it and it seems to sing and repeat `It (the stick) never
will thump again', Never would sound that loud strange bellow when father thought they were not
hurrying enough. It will never thump again! What was Constantia thinking? She had a strange smile;
she looked different. `A week since father died'. Jug and Con feel relief and they `forgot to be practical
and sensible' which was what conventions called for. They allow the sun to come in and stay for a while
but when the organ stops, they let their lives slip back to the daily routine their father had forced them
into. It shows the power that the dead sometimes have over the living.
To conclude, Josephine and Constantia differ only in that the first is practical and sensible and the
latter is imaginative and dreamy, but they are similar in their weakness of character, their indecision
and their total lack of life experience. As mentioned above, both are asking themselves what will
happen now.
THE COLONEL
He had always controlled his family, especially his daughters to the extent of restricting their rights to
freedom of speech, of choice, of feelings. He had not allowed them to develop their personalities, to grow
free from preconceptions and misconceptions about life, not permitting their feelings to be expressed
until they no longer "seemed" to exist.
From the very beginning we infer the colonel had been a fearful, cold, intolerant and authoritarian
father who, although dead and buried, continues inspiring fear in both his insecure daughters. There
are few scenes in which we actually see father: one, on his deathbed, narrated as a memory from the
sisters' point of view, that describes him using words which connote violence and anger even in his
deathbed 'dark, angry purple'...'never even looked at them'...Even his death is terrifying ...glared at them
'− with one eye− and then went. (terrifying memory of his last moment, isn't it?) .Both daughters recall
the moment and cannot not help thinking that that eye wasn't at all a peaceful eye. Their father's
2
personality can be clearly imagined when Josephine recalls the absolute terror they felt at the cemetery,
while the coffin was lowered, to think that she and Constantia had done this thing without asking his
permission. She could even hear his stick thumping and concluded in tears father will never forgive us
for this− never . His cold, dark and awful room also helps to characterise him; we can deduce he had a
strong and imposing personality since although he has been dead for weeks, his daughters still feel he
was watching there...ready to spring.
Josephine's recalling Cyril's last visit also adds more to this father's characterisation. The words used
in this part (part IX) convey more details about Grandfather Pinner's personality. Jug remembers him
in front of a roaring fire, clasping his stick, shooting his eyes at his grandson, Cyril feeling like a perfect
imbecile in his presence and desperately groaning to her Oh, Aunt Josephine, must we go now?, eager
to leave that torturing moment! In the very last part of the story, another reference is made to their
father's utter intolerance when they listen to the barrel−organ and suddenly remember with relief they
would never have to stop the organ−grinder again. Never again would she and Constantia be told to
make that monkey take his noise somewhere else. The organ−grinder might play there all day and the
stick would not thump.. However, the Colonel's irate temper was not limited to the members of his
family only, There had been father's Anglo−Indian friends, before he quarrelled with them. On the
whole, it is through Josephine's stream of consciousness that we are able to imagine what colonel Pinner
had been to family and friends alike.
KATE AND NURSE
Kate and Nurse Andrews are secondary characters and at the same time could be defined as
synonymous characters as regards their function which seems identical in the development of the plot.
Both help to reveal and highlight the sisters vulnerability and lack of resolve when dealing with matters
that require a firm and decisive attitude. In Kate's case in particular, we can sense her role being that
of a constant reminder of the sisters' inability to cope with powerful and devious personalities who
show off their power and control over them as did their father in the past. Her actions thus indicative of
her meanness and deliberateness .
These female characters or vehicle characters, therefore serve as vehicles; they help to convey the issues
marked above together with other facts revealed through characters' consciousness , such as their plain
submissiveness to others as in the case of the meal: "Nurse Andrews waited, smiling at them both. Her
eyes wandered , spying everything behind her eyeglasses . Constantia in despair went back to her
camels. Josephine frowned heavily− concentrated . If it hadn't been for this idiotic woman she and Con
would, of course have eaten their blancmange. Nurse Andrews is hereby portrayed as abusive and
demanding, benefiting from the sisters' kindness and goodwill.
Kate is characterised as not the typical British maid of the 1920s. She is impertinent, cheeky,
disrespectful. Takes advantage of sisters' incapacity to give orders, to make up their minds even about
trivial things. Perfectly sure of her position in the house.
She snatches away plates, she bursts open pieces of furniture, bursts through doors without knocking
and waiting for permission, questions the sisters in a bold voice , stalks off and bounces back leaving
their door open and slamming the door of her kitchen, thus openly showing a careless and rather
disrespectful attitude towards her polite, humble (and rather frightful!) landladies. Her actions show
her meanness and deliberateness. A line that can summarise Mansfield's characterisation of Kate can
be the one that reads: And proud young Kate, the enchanted princess, came in to see what the old
tabbies wanted now. There seems to be a reversal of roles: the maid looks down on her employers
evidently and explicitly while the latter sometimes prefer to do things on their own in order not to
disturb Kate! They even find it really difficult to make up their mind as regards Kate's continuity in the
household although Josephine firmly says they should come to a definite decision this time.
3
These female characters are vehicle characters because they help to convey the issues marked above
together with other facts revealed through characters' consciousness , such as their plain
submissiveness to others as in the case of the meal: "Nurse Andrews waited, smiling at them both. Her
eyes wandered , spying everything behind her eyeglasses . Constantia in despair went back to her
camels. Josephine frowned heavily− concentrated . If it hadn't been for this idiotic woman she and Con
would, of course have eaten their blancmange. Nurse Andrews is hereby portrayed as abusive and
demanding, benefiting from the sisters' kindness and goodwill.
Nurse Andrews, is characterised as a tactless woman who possesses the maddening habit of asking for
just an inch more of whatever the sisters offer to her. At the beginning of the story we learn Con and
Jug really regret having invited her to stay with them one more week after the colonel's death. Instead
of being a helpful lodger, something naturally expected considering her occupation, she is characterised
as a person who complicated matters and took advantage of their kindness devouring all the butter and
marmalade that appeared within her reach.
STYLE
The story is definitely open−ended and as far as Mansfield wrote, the characters have not developed.
However, there are two possibilities to consider: a) that given the time they would get used to their new
way of life and might start to see things in a different light. The question is, will they have the courage
to face the change? b) There's almost a climax, a turning point in the sisters' attempt to open up and
talk about 'the future' or freedom and possibilities...but it quickly fades away in a cloud of
embarrassment, fear, insecurity.
The use of stream of consciousness occurs constantly throughout the story from both Josephine's and
Constantia's points of view. For me the most imitate and revealing is on Page 124 "She remembered .
Now?" The inner moment in this particular passage has the force of revelation when the character of
Constantia comes to see her life more clearly. As a reader I felt surprised by the contrast of their
restricted "everyday life" and the sense of freedom and communion she revealed in her silent musing,
on the edge of the sea or by the moonlight or into a thunderstorm, when she only "really felt herself".
There are several instances of this technique in the story:
− Josephine at the cemetery (part V)
− Their reflection on the runner (part VII)
− Josephine recalling Cyril´s visit (part VII)
− Constantia analysing Kate (part XI)
− Both sisters' final pondering on the organ−grinder's music (part XII)
The techniques of stream of consciousness and free indirect discourse serve to feature the main
characters as we gain access to the characters' consciousness or thought processes.
As regards the first one the attempt is to reproduce their consciousness with no respect for the rules of
syntax. just the reproduction of thoughts as these are generated, thus jumping from one subject to the
other, "She never had .The whole difficulty was to prove anything. How did one prove things, how
could one?. Suppose Kate had stood in front of her and deliberately made a face at her "If Kate
answered "No"_ and of course, she would say "No" _what a position!"
4
In the case of free indirect discourse, the technique oscillates between narrative comment and
character's consciousness, in this way the author gains access into the characters thoughts in a sort of
third person reproduced monologue. in the particular case when Josephine is fondly thinking of their
nephew Cyril whom she thinks is the only one who truly deserves to have their father's gold watch.
Josephine made no reply. She had flown off on one of her tangents. She had suddenly thought of Cyril.
Wasn't it more usual for the only grandson to have the watch? And then dear Cyril was so appreciative
and a gold watch meant so much to a young man...."
THE LUMBER ROOM
The lumber room Is a forbidden place "dark and dimly lit", "full of treasures not to be spoilt by use",
whereas the rest of the house is "bare and cheerless". This gives the impression that the aunt herself is
"bare and cheerless" and everything that was exciting and beautiful was forbidden by her, such as the
lumber room or the gooseberry garden. This of course made every object within the lumber room more
interesting to a child, especially something as horrific as a tapestry depicting a hunting scene, and the
possibility of a horrific slaughter of the hunter and hounds by wolves. It would the modern equivalent
of a violent film or video game that would hover in the mind of a child. Even more so because of the
bleakness of the rest of the house, where the only excitement is to outwit the adult authorities, even such
an extreme as to smile seems to be an excess "it was probably the first time for twenty years that
anyone had smiled in that lumber room". Nicholas sees himself as the hunter in the tapestry, whereas
the hunter must outwit the wolves and sacrifice his prize of the stag to save his life and those of his dogs.
Nicholas must outwit his aunt and sacrifice an outing or risk punishment in order to enjoy the thrill of
his "hunt". One can imagine him always being the daring one in future, yet ultimately coming out on
top; perhaps admired but not necessarily liked.
Nicholas would be a demanding adversary to have to outwit constantly. Perhaps his parents could have
handle him better by harnessing his intelligence but his aunt was no match for him. I'd detest his use of
a helpless frog to outwit adults, unnecessary cruelty just to prove his point. I would worry about his
influence on his younger brother and cousins and wonder where his cruelty would end? How would you
punish such an adult − child for whom getting "one up" on everyone is obviously the whole point of his
life? Ideally he'd need a full−time tutor who could match him in daring and intelligence and guide him
to use his natural audacity in positive ways. But I wonder if he hasn't been through endless tutors and
outwitted them all?
On the one hand, Nicholas's aunt is a symbol of the adult world. She possesses all the features found in
a typical adult, especially in terms of her relationship with children. Adults are portrayed as prejudiced
towards the world of children; they always have a high opinion of themselves and do not listen to what
children say. They assume children are stupid and take them for granted. Besides, they justify their lies
for the sake of their children. They tend to overreact to stupid events; they make a fuss of unimportant
issues, as is the case of the lumber−room. Nicholas's aunt created a mystery around something that
wasn't mysterious at all.
The issue of "revenge" can be analysed taking into account two different approaches. One which
assumes that Nicholas reveals a revengeful trait in his personality and therefore this trait will account
for the forceful drive behind his actions, or another which will justify the fact that his actions had been
triggered off by his aunt's perverse and unfair treatment in the past, "It was her habit , whenever one of
the children fell from grace, to improvise something of a festival nature from which the offender would be
rigorously debarred."
The 3rd person narrator focuses on the character of Nicholas, and it is through this standpoint that we
5
learn about the character's consciousness. The latter is effectively conveyed through telling, having
access into the characters' mind and thus getting to know what he thinks and feels. Especially in the
case of his aunt and of adults in general "Older and wiser and better people had told him that here could
not possibly be a frog in his bread−and−milk" The statement loaded with irony, already conditions the
readers in their appreciation of adults in the story.
The character of the aunt is also constructed both directly and indirectly, we are told she is not his real
Aunt but she considers herself as such and therefore with full authority over Nicholas.
Indirectly we learn about her through speech, characterising her as authoritarian and controlling. She
likes to show her authority over the little ones and to exert power over them by imposing rules,
regulations and banning mischief and misconduct through punishment and penance. Her punishment
can be considered altogether arbitrary and unfair. Some aspects of her personality are made known to
us through "telling". The narrator provides us with information about her actions in the past, and it is
through a particular statement that we can sense the shift in the perspective, now being that of an adult
and not that of Nicholas , the narrator becomes omniscient, "She was a woman of few ideas , with
immense powers of concentration"
Her perversion and meanness are shown throughout the story mainly through her actions. It is with
reference to her past that we picture her as someone who derives pleasure in the affliction and suffering
of the defenceless and weak little ones.
Even in the last instances we are witnesses of her deceitful and perverse nature. "Will there be
strawberry jam for tea? "asked Nicholas innocently
"Certainly there will be, "said the aunt , privately resolving that Nicholas should have none of it.
On the other hand, Nicholas proves to be very smart and cunning for his age. He tricks his aunt easily
when he refuses to help her in the gooseberry garden. He appears to be extremely talented at creating
stories and understanding the facts of life. He is meticulous and pays attention to details as shown when
he replaces the key in its original place. He doesn't seem to understand the world of adults at first until
he discovers it and uses it in his favour. Ironically, he reveals the stupidity of the conventions created by
adults. However, there is a trace of cruelty in his behaviour at a certain point; he sees his aunt is
suffering and instead of helping her, he sniggers at her misfortune.
The incident of the frog in the bread and milk makes Nicholas appear like a naughty boy who has done
something quite witty to avoid drinking his breakfast. However, this image soon changes and we realise
that he is a true enfant−terrible. He is burning with curiosity and is relentless in his quest to satisfy his
desire to know what the forbidden lumber−room conceals. To ensure his success, he has to be alone in
the house and undisturbed by the presence of the other children, therefore, he has carefully planned the
unforgivable misdemeanour of putting a frog in his bowl and confessing to the crime in the certainty
that he will be punished in the usual manner by his predictable soi−dissant Aunt.
However, his purpose does not become clear at this stage and it is surprising that he welcomes his
punishment gladly −to his Aunt's disappointment his does not even shed a tear. Ironically, those who
are rewarded with the promise of an exciting outing are not leaving in the best of moods, as one is
crying because she has got hurt and another one is sour because his boots are too small. Only later the
reader understands that putting the frog in the milk is the initial step of a carefully planned scheme.
It is in this part of the story where Saki's message is absolutely clear: how wrong adults are in their
treatment and understanding of children. Indeed, in his days the belief was that adults were always
6
right and should never be contradicted, which the frog incident proves to be utterly wrong. Further on,
he introduces another issue, how adults can be deaf to children's remarks. (Indeed, the rule that
"children should be seen and not heard still prevailed in my infancy and it only started to change in the
sixties under the influence of Dr Spock!).
Saki's portrayal of both characters is definitive: the Aunt is a righteous, narrow−minded judgmental
woman who has no understanding of children's behaviour or needs, while Nicholas is a surprisingly
clever boy who has a clear insight of adults' reactions to children.
It becomes clear that Saki chose special terms for each of the two. Those related to the Aunt show that
she exaggerates children's faults to extremes. Her bigotry is skilfully shown by terms that are used in
the confessional, e.g. "the sin of taking a frog..."; "...whenever one of the children fell from grace"; "if
all the children sinned"; "you are in disgrace"; "Aunt often tells me that the Evil one tempts me".
These terms eloquently show how this woman magnifies the children's mischievous antics, regarding
them as unpardonable crimes. But what is more, she also appears to have the puritanical practice of
denying herself and others comfort and pleasures. For example "she was one of those people who think
that things spoil by use and consign them to dust and damp..." "Such parts of the house as Nicholas
knew best were rather bare and cheerless". While the lumber−room stores things that would have
served the make the house a more pleasant and warmer place to live in, her home is cold and bleak.
Nicholas is shown as a really strong−willed little boy. From the start, Saki makes us see him as an army
officer in the battlefield "a skilled tactician who does not intend to shift from favourable ground". To
emphasise this idea of a campaign to conquer enemy territory −the lumber−room− Saki continues using
military terms such as "Nicholas made one or two sorties" and the Aunt is on "self−imposed sentry
duty".
However, this little boy has not only a shrewd mind that can easily outwit the Aunt, who is not very
bright indeed. He has a creative mind that can easily introduce drama into a scene that does not satisfy
him completely. He does not find the picture in the tapestry exciting enough − "... it would not have
been difficult to creep up to the feeding stag" − and immediately adds to it an element of suspense: the
huntsman being threatened by wolves.
Nicholas's world seems to be one of rules and punishment rather than freedom and affection. On the
contrary, the world of imagination as portrayed especially in Nicholas' interpretation of the tapestry, is
a rich universe, full of excitement and freedom, even danger. It is a world of possibilities in which the
hunter might even get a chance to either escape with his hounds or shoot the wolves with the two
arrows in his quiver; the wolves could be just the four that gallop towards the hunter, but there could
be more hidden; he could be an extremely dextrous archer, or else a lousy one who can only kill a stag
at short distance. Notice that in this case, in the world of fantasy, oppositions are plenty and varied.
This of course leads us to the child's interpretation of the tapestry at the very end, being symbolic in
relation to his own situation in the house. Nicholas finds 'a way out', maybe 'just possible', for the
hunter, which resembles his own escape from the punishment in the risks it implies, the excitement, the
adrenaline.
Some binary oppositions
1) Children / "older, wiser and better people".
2) Expedition supposed to be punitive for Nicholas / Expedition turns out to be punitive for the rest of
the children. The tide is high, there were no sands, the tightness in Bobby's boots.
7
3) True Parents / "soi−dissant aunt"; "aunt by assertion".
4) "decent tears" which were looked for on the part of Nicholas when the moment of the departure
arrived / All crying was done by his girl−cousin who scraped her knee.
5) Nicholas wriggling his way with obvious stealth of purpose / He had no real intention of trying to get
into the gooseberry garden.
6) Lumber Room "unknown land stale of delight, a mere material pleasure" / a) gooseberry garden;/
b) the rest of the house "bare and cheerless".
7) Teapot fashioned like a china duck / Dull and shapeless nursery pot.
8) Coloured pictures of exotic birds / Few and non−interesting birds Nicholas came across when he
went for a walk.
9) Being alone in the lumber room / group of children going to Jagborough's sands.
10) Freedom gained by imagination / Grown−ups repression.
11) Nicholas' imagination, fantasy, creativeness / Aunt's little imagination, rigidity, strictness.
I think that binary oppositions are so countless in the story because Saki is deliberately trying to show
and describe opposite worlds, which will always remain as such.
Besides, the author is criticising society and a way to do it is by emphasising the difference between
these two worlds (children/grown−ups).
And we, as readers, cannot remain passive. After reading the story, we must make up our minds to
whether we like or dislike the two main characters/worlds.
8