I think Maurice was written when homosexuality wasn't fully defined yet. After the Wilde trials people had a certain image in mind when they thought of sodomites but a mere decade before sodomy meant all sorts of sexual deviances, mainly buggery between men and women, men and men and men and animals. Sodomy referred to sexual acts not a specific sexual identity. Maurice is remarkable because he is decidedly different from Risley and his set of friends. Forster made Maurice a character that was nothing like homosexuals were supposed to be like (in the public mind which always thought of Wilde when they thought of sodomites), e.g. artistic, effeminate, aesthetic, eloquent and brilliant.
When Clive gives him the Symposium Maurice doesn't get it. That's why he reacts so brusquely and derisively when Clive confesses his love for him. And later, when Maurice tells Clive that he loves him back he stammers something about being like the Greeks but he cannot elaborate what he means with that. Because Maurice doesn't build his identity around
( ... )
Eloquently put! Perhaps I should have stressed that Forster was possibly alluding to the above mentioned point when referencing The Symposium.
You're right that Maurice just didn't get it. Though it would make sense that he wouldn't instantly make the connections since a) he's a bit slow b) a bit self-repressed and c) the Ancient Greeks are often spoken of like they're a different species; "The vice of the Greeks," "the Greek way of thinking," and so forth.
At first it seems that Clive is the more progressive of the two because he identifies himself with the Greeks. However, it's clear that he wanted an excuse for believing that male-male love was virtuous and not wrong, but the Greek way of life no longer coalesces with the conventions of the 1910s. Outside of university, it became clear just how disconnected his world was from that of Ancient Greece. Even in Greece itself (as Maurice pointed out) all that's left of the ancient way of life is rubble
( ... )
I'll have to read this. I admit I was waiting for someone else to do it and then make a recommendation, so thanks for that.
Your summary now gives the story another perspective for me. I had assumed that Clive wanted Maurice to read the Symposium so that Maurice might come to the same conclusions, and I had thought those conclusions included a physical relationship. I never really understood why Clive wanted their relationship to be platonic - though he did silently encourage a small amount of touching. To me, it was almost like he was teasing Maurice, but now I see this really wasn't the case.
Sharing is a beautiful term. I wonder how long Forster cogitated over its use.
Again, thanks for the report. I'm going to see if I can get Symposium from the library.
I do recommend it. It was an interesting read, though not without fault. I think the main issue overall is that Plato confuses Love with Desire, but I think it helps to better understand Clive.
Each character presents a eulogy for the god of Love. Therefore most of the first half of the story is just Plato setting things up for Socrates' turn in which he dissects his friends' eulogies, so there's a good reason for them not to be very sound. All the more fun for Socrates to tear them apart! More than once Socrates used syllogism to make the interlocutor's point invalid. However, reading it was sort of like a math equation in which the work doesn't quite match up with the answer. The logic between point A and B was a bit slippery in places.
Especially when you think about how Clive tries to fill the role of teacher for Maurice. It's just how he understands that sort of relationship to work, and therefore it's a given that he would try to lead Maurice in the ways of virtue.
Comments 5
When Clive gives him the Symposium Maurice doesn't get it. That's why he reacts so brusquely and derisively when Clive confesses his love for him. And later, when Maurice tells Clive that he loves him back he stammers something about being like the Greeks but he cannot elaborate what he means with that. Because Maurice doesn't build his identity around ( ... )
Reply
You're right that Maurice just didn't get it. Though it would make sense that he wouldn't instantly make the connections since a) he's a bit slow b) a bit self-repressed and c) the Ancient Greeks are often spoken of like they're a different species; "The vice of the Greeks," "the Greek way of thinking," and so forth.
At first it seems that Clive is the more progressive of the two because he identifies himself with the Greeks. However, it's clear that he wanted an excuse for believing that male-male love was virtuous and not wrong, but the Greek way of life no longer coalesces with the conventions of the 1910s. Outside of university, it became clear just how disconnected his world was from that of Ancient Greece. Even in Greece itself (as Maurice pointed out) all that's left of the ancient way of life is rubble ( ... )
Reply
Your summary now gives the story another perspective for me. I had assumed that Clive wanted Maurice to read the Symposium so that Maurice might come to the same conclusions, and I had thought those conclusions included a physical relationship. I never really understood why Clive wanted their relationship to be platonic - though he did silently encourage a small amount of touching. To me, it was almost like he was teasing Maurice, but now I see this really wasn't the case.
Sharing is a beautiful term. I wonder how long Forster cogitated over its use.
Again, thanks for the report. I'm going to see if I can get Symposium from the library.
Reply
Each character presents a eulogy for the god of Love. Therefore most of the first half of the story is just Plato setting things up for Socrates' turn in which he dissects his friends' eulogies, so there's a good reason for them not to be very sound. All the more fun for Socrates to tear them apart! More than once Socrates used syllogism to make the interlocutor's point invalid. However, reading it was sort of like a math equation in which the work doesn't quite match up with the answer. The logic between point A and B was a bit slippery in places.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment