One February night in T.S. Eliot’s mid-twenties, he went his aunt’s house in Boston. It was 1913, and the occasion was one of those delightful-sounding “evenings of amateur theatricals” that no one bothers with anymore. (It’s a tradition that really ought to be revived, if anyone’s asking me.) Eliot performed as Mr. Woodhouse in scenes drawn from Jane Austen’s Emma. One of the actresses performing opposite him, as the imperious Mrs. Elton, was a young woman named Emily Hale.
Hale was the daughter of an architect-turned-Unitarian-minister, but she lived with her aunt and uncle because her mother was mentally ill, and thus deemed unable to care for her daughter. The aunt and uncle were Unitarians, too. That was how Hale’s circle crossed with Eliot’s, according to his biographer, Lyndall Gordon, who quotes Eliot as joking “that his family’s relation to Boston Unitarianism was like that of the Borgias to the papacy.” Unlike the heavily-educated Eliot, who was by then a graduate student studying Sanskrit, Hale never went to college. She had always wanted to be an actress, but her aunt and uncle thought it improper for her to appear on a public stage. Boston society was terribly high on propriety. So for awhile, Hale was forced to only do only the kind of semi-private performances like the one she gave that evening.
Hale and Eliot had met before , but something about that performance seems to have stuck with him. Eliot’s biographers believe that he and Hale had some kind of love affair thereafter. Then Eliot left for Oxford on a scholarship in 1914, and in a span of four months the next year, met and married his first wife, Vivienne Haigh-Wood. The regrets he had of that marriage, and his unfair treatment of Vivienne, are well-chronicled elsewhere. It is clear, however, that Emily Hale remained on his mind. She is thought to have inspired more than a few of his poems, and he sent her a copy of one of his books of poetry. She visited London a few times in the early 1920s, and though there is no record of their having met then, it seems possible, even likely, that they did. In his poems and plays and essays, the allusions to her are always of an idealized woman. It’s possible his “Song of Saint Sebastian” is about Hale, as it was probably drafted before he met Vivienne:
I would come in a shirt of hair
I would come with a lamp in the night
And sit at the foot of your stair;
I would flog myself until I bled,
And after hour on hour of prayer
And torture and delight
Until my blood should ring the lamp
And glisten in the light…
Whatever the case, it took until 1927 for the two to resume regular contact. Eliot was still married to Vivienne, but she was ill and the marriage went very poorly. Hale would visit him in London and he would visit her in the United States over the coming years many times. They kept their relationship secret in Boston particularly, fearing scandal. He would come out to speak at Scripps College, where Hale was later employed, at her behest, sparking rumours among the students she would not confirm. In the mid-thirties she took a leave from Scripps and hung around in Europe for a year, presumably hoping that Eliot would finally marry her. She met Virginia Woolf and Ottoline Morrell, but both disliked her. But Eliot never did propose still agonizing over the problem of Vivienne, from whom he was now formally separated but still not quite disentangled.
Hale returned home to Boston in late 1935 and promptly fell into a deep depression. Alarmed, Eliot came to the United States to visit her, but still went back to London alone. She began teaching at Smith. They continued to visit each other, and to write letters. He would always describe himself as very much in love with Hale in this period; apparently he regarded her as a lost chance for perfection in his life. But in “Burnt Norton,” the first poem in Four Quartets, about a visit to an old country manor with Hale, notes of doubt seem to creep in:
Footfalls echo in the memory
Down the passage which we did not take
Towards the door we never opened
Into the rose-garden. My words echo
Thus, in your mind.
When Vivienne finally died in a mental hospital, in 1947, she was still married to Eliot. He never divorced her, though famously in the nearly ten years Vivienne spent in the hospital he didn’t visit her once. Hale thought that now Eliot could finally marry her. But it wasn’t to be. Hale wrote to a friend about it:
We met privately two or three times to try to sift the situation as thoroughly as possible — he loves me — I believe that wholly –but apparently not in the way usual to men less gifted i.e. with complete love thro’ a married relationship. I have not completely yet given up hope that he may yet recover from this — to me — abnormal reaction, but on the other hand I cannot allow myself to hold on to anything so delicately uncertain.
When Eliot finally did remarry, to his secretary Valerie Fletcher, in 1957, Hale had a breakdown so severe she had to be hospitalized.
Eliot eventually destroyed her letters to him, but Hale bequeathed her collection of over a thousand of his letters to her to Princeton, under the restriction that they not be opened to the public until January 1, 2020. No one but Hale, and maybe the processing archivist, has ever read them.
I think about Emily Hale a lot. A lot of people write on Vivienne, and of course they should. But the Emily Hales of the world are the greater mystery, to my mind. No one wants to pry, exactly. But it’s hard not to be curious about all the nights she spent alone, waiting. As Louis Menand has pointed out, some biographers — particularly Vivienne’s — think it’s possible that Eliot was simply closeted all his life, and used Hale as a beard. Perhaps that’s true, but look at that passage from her letter again: it seems that Hale herself did not know this. I guess we will find out in 2020, though it’s unclear. A thing you learn, if you start going through archives, reading letters, is that no one tells the whole truth in letters. Frequently they don’t tell half of it. And what you’ll say to someone in a letter to them might be entirely different than the way you’d calibrate those words to someone else.
After all, though it was pretty clear from their letters that Morrell and Woolf thought Hale a prim bore, Gordon reports that when people visited Hale at Scripps, she received guests in a dressing-gown of silk brocade, black with gold dragons. Her living room, her contemporaries told him, was a “mass of color.”




6 responses
I’m loving all of these Michelle Dean Saturdays.
Bertrand Russell as sexual predator. Jesus H!…. And Hale’s love, as you detail it, seems a Stendhalian crystallization so animating and forceful that it inspires, makes real the crazed conjurings of those who can continue, forever crystallized, even when their love goes unrequited.
Eliot,although a great poet, was obviously an asshole and Hale was a fool.
When Valerie is referred to a ELiot’s secretary, that is of course correct. She had, however,a highly intelligent woman who had attended a challenging high school where the girls had studied Eliot’s work. She moved to London and took that job because she already admired him. It would be quite reasonable for a middle-aged man who had already had one bad marriage to a charming but unstable woman, to choose to marry a sensible partner who loved him and would organize his life at home as well as at the office, rather than someone whose students were already referring to her as ‘strange’.
I spent the first two years of my undergraduate course worshipping Eliot’s words. Then, in my Junior year, the poet Dara Weir recommended I begin to read Stevens, and I found him more congenial. I have had the thrill, since 1978, of seeing Stevens’ star ascend, while Eliot’s has continued to descend. (There are some who suggest that Eliot attempted to stall the publication of Stevens’ poems in England; perhaps sensing a rival?) Stevens’ wife was a first class nut, but he neither incarcerated nor abandoned, but continued to live with her for the rest of his life. (Of course, she destroyed a priceless amount of his manuscripts before their daughter, Holly, was able to stop that process.) Eliot played Emily the way he played Vivienne, that cat and mouse offer and then withdraw of affection. The Atlantic ocean, and time, spared Emily from the direct effects. Vivienne, of course, was not so fortunate. There is an interesting story, documentable, of an American psychiatrist, an Army officer stationed in England, who happened to obtain a chance to interview Vivienne in the asylum. He found her to be reasonably sane. Apparently, he attempted to file a petition for review of the guardianship on her behalf, but was dismissed by the court and also suddenly transferred back to the States. The extent of Eliot’s infouence in England was far more than merely literary.
I have often wondered why the second wife, Valerie, did not receive similar emotional abuse, and I can only come up with two reasons. First, based on her behavior for the remainder of her life, she was the loyal custodian of the “great man’s” wishes, and I think he probably groomed her for that (so that he could not take the chance of distancing her, as he had distanced the other two women). Or, alternatively or simultaneously, his health, which had been failing (when he married Valerie, he had been told he had six months to live) simply did not allow for the kind of energy required by the psychological torture. I think his entire attitude toward Vivienne and Emily was summed up in some lines from his play, Sweeney Agonistes (which I quote from memory, so this is more likely a paraphrase): “Any man might do a girl in. Any man has to—needs to—wants to—once in a lifetime . . . do a girl in.” Old Possum did do two girls in, at least emotionally. Instead of writing the Practical Cats, he should have written Practical Marital Abuse 101. (And, for those who care to listen, reconsider the Memory song in Cats. I have been told it contains some of Vivienne’s words—“It’s so easy to leave me,” “I can smile at the old days, I was beautiful then,” and “I must think of a new life and I mustn’t give in.”)
One last thought: it’s an odd coincidence that Eliot was born in the year and month when that other misogynist Londoner, Jack the Ripper, began his reign of terror. As they say, just sayin’.
Addendum to my previous post: If Grizabella and the Memory song are influenced, either deliberately or even unintentionally, by Vivienne Eliot, how did that get past the ever vigilant second Mrs. Eliot who had, one presumes, control over the production’s use of the Cats material (at least as I understand Eliot’s will, she did)? Of course, since she, too, is now gone, we will never know. But I suggest two possible solutions: first, she was not fully aware of the historical knowledge of Vivienne, and what she said and did, as this has been gathered by various scholars from various sources. (I think it doubtful that the second Mrs. Eliot had a working knowledge of the first Mrs. Eliot’s papers sealed at Oxford.) Or, after so many years of vigilance, she simply failed to recognize the shared characteristics. If you read the biography of Vivienne Eliot in “Painted Shadow” by Caroline Seymour Jones . . . and then look at Grizabella and hear her plaintive song . . . you may begin to see certain similarities. Also, you will get a sense of how much resistance Valerie Eliot mustered against scholars who inquire into Vivienne’s life through use of the papers sealed at Oxford. Shakespeare’s lines, “Methinks he doth protest too much,” is very applicable here. With so much resistance, so much effort to control information (even to an attempt to legally block the Hale letters from release in 2019), what are they really trying to hide?
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.