My Aunt Margaret's Adventure

Dublin: The Swan River Press, 2009, pp.36. Introduction by Jim Rockhill and Afterword by Gary William Crawford.  The book may be ordered direct from The Swan River Press.

 (ISSN 1932-9598)

Victorian authors published widely; many wrote anonymously in literary periodicals, and some contributed to the newspapers. This situation embraced even the most successful and influential of writers: Dickens placed many 'invisible' pieces, as did Collins, Braddon, Thackeray and Gaskell. So it is barely surprising to find that Le Fanu was bound by the same conventions, producing work which – like many of the fugitive writings of his contemporaries – remains unknown, or is only identifiable on the basis of a stylistic analysis.

Such an item is 'My Aunt Margaret's Adventure', which first appeared in The Dublin University Magazine in 1864 and was attributed to Le Fanu by M. R. James (1923). Its re-issue, in the form of a small and delicately printed chapbook, is a bold attempt to re-establish the story within the canon of Le Fanu's work. To that end, the tale is framed by two persuasive and well-written essays: an introduction by Jim Rockhill which outlines the literary context, and an analytical afterword by Gary Crawford. Both advance strong arguments in favour of James's attribution. Rockhill comments on such important issues as the treatment of light (5), and Crawford notes the emphasis on building a 'pervasive atmosphere of mystery and strange occurrences' (30).

At the same time both commentators retain an appropriate distance and objectivity. It is still possible that the tale may not be by Le Fanu, and Crawford worries about the absence of conclusive proof. 'If authorship can somehow be proved', it would take its place as a 'remarkable story' (31). So how strong is the case for attribution? Is it, one wonders, substantial enough to merit claiming this text for Le Fanu, and reprinting it as a new 'find'?

There are important issues at stake here. Some of the evidence is circumstantial, a question of value through association. The story appeared in The Dublin University Magazine, it recalls Le Fanu's style, and, taking this line of reasoning, is likely to be his work. There is no good reason why any one else, other than the proprietor, would venture into this field. His fierce protectiveness of his work and reputation suggests otherwise; and in the absence of publishing archives - which usually hold records of was paid and when - we have to believe the probable explanation. But more controversial  is the question of attribution through analysis of style. Lacking the author's name we have to rely, as Crawford remarks, on 'internal evidence' (31).

It is in this domain that we have to make a judgement, and the pros and cons seem remarkably well balanced. The story is unmistakeably stacked with the iconographies of Le Fanu's writing: a litany of features that includes the menacing inn, the prosaic event that goes wrong, the sound of movement outside the door, the gallows humour, the ambiguous light and the unexpected shift from a familiar landscape into yet 'another range of mountains' (11). All of these will be familiar, the very grist to the supernatural mill. At the same time, there is perhaps a lightness of touch which is fairly (though not entirely) uncharacteristic of Le Fanu's style, and (it seems to me) places rather too much emphasis on 'Oirish' accents and the buffoonery of Old Tom.

These aspects of the tale could of course be explained as experimentation, as a playing with conventions. Le Fanu may have cranked up the fear in most of his stories; but it is not impossible that in 'My Aunt Margaret's Adventure' he wanted to write in a more casual style, reflecting on his own practice by telling a story which has no supernatural explanation. We should remember his writing of Sensational texts in the 60s, and his interest, in novels such as Checkmate, in 'domesticating Gothic'.

Another possibility – and one which is not considered by the commentators – is the idea that Le Fanu's story might be a re-working of Scott's supernatural tale, 'Aunt Margaret's Mirror' (1828). Many ingredients of Scott's tale are quoted in 'My Aunt Margaret's Adventure' and Le Fanu might be offering a half-comic treatment of Scott's grim tale. In the Preface to Uncle Silas he aligns his work to Scott, and his tale (if indeed it is) could be viewed as a sort of homage. Such allusiveness is a key characteristic of his work and could be another means of tethering the story to the Le Fanu oeuvre.

Taken as a whole, the scholarly re-publication of this tale is a valuable exercise. Rockhill and Crawford encourage the reader of Le Fanu to think afresh. Implicitly, they focus attention on his style and range of interests. What makes a text by Le Fanu? Can we identify his idiom? And what happens if it fails to comply with our expectations – or skews or challenges them? These questions linger long after the tale has been read.

Like ghosts, they return to haunt the mind, forcing us to look, once again, for the writer behind the spectral text.

Simon Cooke