Tag Archives: George du Maurier

‘Trilby,’ by George du Maurier

Well, that was an experience. I went ahead and followed my instinct to download George du Maurier’s novel Trilby, based on my weird fascination with the old John Barrymore movie, “Svengali.” I wasn’t prepared for the degree to which the book would grab me. It was one of those “hard to put it down” reading experiences.

My shame is great at being taken in like this by a Victorian bestseller, and not even a mystery or an adventure tale! A love melodrama, of all things.

Most oddly of all, though Trilby fascinated me, I can’t really recommend it to our readers. I have several objections to the thing.

As you may (or may not) be aware, Trilby is a story mostly about the lives of artists in Paris’ Latin Quarter in the 1850s. This novel’s extreme popularity established that time and place forever in the public mind as a colorful, freethinking milieu. Three British painters – the big war veteran Taffy, the jolly Laird, and the young, innocent Little Billee, share an atelier. There they meet a charming young woman, Trilby O’Ferrall, who is of Irish/Scottish parentage but has spent all her life in Paris. She works as an artist’s model and a washer woman. She’s beautiful, unaffected, uninhibited, and charming. They all fall in love with her to some extent, but Little Billee does most of all. However, he can’t handle the fact that she does nude modeling (“for the altogether,” as she puts it. This is where our phrase “in the altogether” originates), and is not chaste. In spite of his religious freethinking (much is made of that), he’s basically an upper middle-class boy.

Another member of their circle, though generally unwelcome, is Svengali, a Polish Jew and a brilliant musician. Svengali can play any instrument beautifully, except for his own voice. When he hears Trilby’s voice, he’s intrigued, but he soon learns that, though the sound itself is magnificent, she is utterly tone-deaf.

Eventually Billee overcomes his scruples and proposes marriage to Trilby. She agrees reluctantly. Although she reciprocates his love, she understands their social differences would doom their marriage. Soon after, Billee’s mother and sister come to visit, and his mother has a talk with Trilby, who agrees to break the engagement and disappears. Billee then suffers a breakdown which marks the end of his time in Paris. But his talent has now been recognized, and when he recovers, back in England, he is a famous and sought-after man.

Five years later, he, Taffy, and the Laird have a reunion in Paris. They’re surprised to learn that their old acquaintance Svengali is now the talk of Europe. He is famous as the manager of his beautiful wife, “la Svengali,” said to have the most ravishing voice in the world. The trio get tickets to her concert, and are almost – not quite – certain that la Svengali is in fact their old friend Trilby, whom they’d thought dead. When by chance they encounter the Svengali carriage on the street, both their old acquaintances pretend not to know them.

From there it all rolls on to a tragic conclusion, more drawn-out than in the film.

I said, in discussing the movie, that the cinematic Trilby reminds me of a girl I once cared about. It disturbed me, as I read, that Trilby in the book was even more like the girl I knew than the actress (though my girl did not share Trilby’s sexual mores). On top of that, elements in the story took me back to my college days. I think it was a feeling that, in some ways, I was reading about my own life that gripped me as I read Trilby.

But you, Kind Reader, never knew that girl. And you (probably) weren’t there when I was in college. So I have no reason to think you’d react to this book as I did.

For one thing, it’s Victorian literature – that is to say, overwritten. Du Maurier isn’t a horrible over-writer like so many Victorians; often he can be amusing in his frequent digressions. (By the way, there’s a lot of French dialogue in this book, so it helps if you have decent French. Which I don’t). But he does take his time telling the story. This isn’t just a narrative; it’s sort of a leisurely travelogue.

But my main objections are moral and theological. This was a somewhat scandalous book in its time – “Read about all the naughty things they get up to in Paris!” Trilby isn’t a virgin for much the same reason that a girl in the South Sea islands wouldn’t be a virgin. It’s alien to her culture. Du Maurier may have been challenging Victorian sexual mores here, but he keeps it oblique.

Much worse is the antisemitism. A lot has been written over the years about Svengali as a Jewish stereotype. Which he certainly is. He’s arrogant, selfish, grasping, and filthy (an odd accusation to make against any Jew, when you think about it). The passages concerning Svengali are frankly horrifying. However, fortunately, Svengali isn’t in the book as much as in the movie.

It should also be noted that there are several Jewish characters in Trilby, and the others are rather nice.

Even worse, from my perspective, are the theological digressions. The author takes several opportunities to have his characters contemplate – or discover – the complete absurdity of Christian doctrine. Everyone who thinks about it (in this book) soon agrees that the Judeo-Christian God is ridiculous and there is no Hell to fear. Either everyone is saved or everyone just goes to sleep. Nothing to worry about, as long as you do good.

So I don’t really know what to tell you about Trilby. It might fascinate you as it fascinated me. Very likely it won’t. If you do read it, you’ll have to wade through some nasty spots, but there are also many rewards.

Musing on film: ‘Svengali’

Trilby (Marian Marsh), Billee (Bramwell Fletcher), and Svengali (John Barrymore) in “Svengali” (1931).

As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve been watching old mystery movies, of which a surprising number can be found posted on YouTube. This is, I freely admit, an exercise in pure escapism. I can’t watch new movies these days; they’re more moralistic than Victorian stage plays – and the morality is wrong. Old movies remind me of the world we threw away in the 1960s. I’m more at home there.

Last night I caught the movie Svengali (1931), which I remember used to show up on TV a lot when I was a kid. That film is only the most famous of a number of dramatic adaptations of the novel Trilby, by the English/French artist and author George du Maurier (grandfather of Daphne du Maurier, who wrote The Birds). I haven’t read the book (I’m thinking about it; I can probably find a free digital version), but according to Wikipedia, the Trilby/Svengali narrative forms only a small part of the novel. The novel is largely an evocation of du Maurier’s own youth as a struggling artist in Paris in the 1850s. The book was very influential – many of our conceptions of “bohemian” life in Paris, even today, are based on it.

Trilby O’Farrell is a half-Irish artist’s model in Paris, a free spirit. The young artist “little Billee” (inseparable from his friends Taffy and Laird, whose gorgeous whiskers provide much of the movie’s visual charm) falls in love with her. But she also comes to the attention of Svengali, the Jewish mesmerist who recognizes that she has a beautiful – though untrained – voice. He hypnotizes her, making her into a stellar concert artist. (The Victorians had excessive ideas about the power of hypnosis.) When she and Billee fall out, Svengali takes the opportunity to put her under a permanent spell. He fakes her suicide, spirits her out of Paris, and embarks on a concert career. Before long, “Mdme. Svengali” is the toast of Europe. By the time Billee finds her again, she’s lost beyond recall.

The movie is really a vehicle for its star John Barrymore, whose intense gaze (emphasized by makeup) and theatrical acting style suit the character perfectly. (The costumers also do a good job of making him look much taller than he really was.) The acting in general is the sort you see in early sound films – the actors are still moving slow and holding their expressions for the camera, waiting for a cue card. The potential of snappy dialogue and throw-away lines hasn’t been discovered yet. Some of the cinematography is very effective, though. There’s a wonderful scene where Svengali takes control of Trilby from a distance. An intense shot of Barrymore’s burning eyes cuts to a moving shot that travels over the roofs of Paris, into Trilby’s chamber window. The age of the technology shows, but it was impressive special effects for the time.

You may be aware, even in these debased times, that there’s a kind of hat called a “trilby.” It was named after the character in the book; illustrations and stage costumes put her in this hat – basically a fedora with a stingy brim. It became very fashionable for both men and women, and had a long run. Frank Sinatra was rarely without his trilby.

Oddly, Marian Marsh, who plays Trilby in the movie, never seems to wear a trilby (or else I glanced away and missed it). Seems like a lost opportunity, like doing Sherlock Holmes without the deerstalker cap. One of my main memories of Miss Marsh, from the many times I saw the film when I was a kid (it always seemed to show up on some local station two or three times a year), was her hair. Not as she originally appears, in a sort of Dutch Boy wig that hasn’t aged well, but as it looks during her first big concert scene. It’s curly, and it hangs to her shoulders. I remember saying to my brothers, way back then, that she “looked like a cocker spaniel.” (At the time, girls wore their hair straight, sometimes ironing it for effect.)

I remember this keenly because – in a small irony only important to me – just a few years later, in college, I fell in love with a girl whose hair looked exactly like Trilby’s concert hair (styles had changed), and it didn’t seem funny to me at all anymore. Makes watching it bittersweet, even now.