Tag Archives: Censorship

NOT INDECENT, ONLY UGLY

Intellimmersion No. 2 · Vienna, 1902

Gustav Klimt, the city that called him mad, and the wall he painted for Beethoven

Gustav Klimt left almost no words about himself. This essay lends him some. The voice is invented. The dates, the materials, the insults, and every word quoted from another mouth are documented. What he could not have known is told at the end, in ours.

Music to read by

Beethoven, Symphony No. 9, III. Adagio molto e cantabile. Neues Symphonie-Orchester, Berlin, conducted by Bruno Seidler-Winkler; Deutsche Grammophon, 1923, from the original 78s, via the Internet Archive. It loops, and it softens while Read aloud speaks.

“Wir kämpfen nicht gegen die nackte und nicht gegen die freie Kunst, sondern gegen die häßliche Kunst.”“We are not fighting naked art, or free art, but ugly art.” Professor Friedrich Jodl, on Klimt’s Philosophy, 1900

I Since This Morning

Josefstädter Straße 21, March 8, 1902

Since this morning I am in the madhouse. Vienna has it for certain. It was known in the cafés by noon, and tonight it was known in the cloakroom of the theatre up the street, where Bahr had it from the newspapermen: Er ist schon im Irrenhause, seit heute früh. He is already in the asylum, since this morning. Not one of them could say who had told him. One heard it over coffee. Another had it by telephone, through his servant.

I was here. I worked until about six, as I do, in the smock, with the door shut. Then the madman cleaned his brushes.

Bahr says it is no accident. The Academy has proposed me for a professorship, unanimously, and the paper is not yet signed. A painter in an asylum cannot be confirmed. He says they also hope to frighten me until something in me breaks. Bahr keeps every clipping they print against me. I think he means to make a book of them.

I do not need the book. I have it by heart, two years of it.

An animation that cycles through colour reconstructions of Klimt’s three ceiling paintings for the University of Vienna: Medicine, Jurisprudence and Philosophy.
Medicine, Jurisprudence and Philosophy, Klimt’s ceiling paintings for the University of Vienna. All three burned at Immendorf Castle in 1945. They survive in black-and-white photographs; the colours are a modern reconstruction.

It began with the Philosophy, in the spring of 1900. Schreder, in the Deutsches Volksblatt, described my ceiling picture as a fish tank: “A green-lit aquarium. Billions of drops glitter.” The Montags-Zeitung found me an ancestor, Herostratus, who set fire to the temple of Diana at Ephesus so that people would remember his name. Seligmann, who paints, wrote that a painter should illustrate the riddle and not pose one himself. Friedmann, who is known for his tact, called my manner hysterical. Pötzl gave us all a new name. We are no longer the Secession. We are the Excession.

Then came the professors. They sent a petition to the Minister to keep my picture off their ceiling, and in the end there were eighty-seven of them. Kraus counted them in his paper, with approval. Professor Jodl explained the matter to the newspaper: “We are not fighting naked art, or free art, but ugly art.” Professor Exner added that the protest was in no way directed against the Secession. I was glad to learn it.

Kraus also reported that Paris had laughed at our Viennese art as goût juif. The Volksblatt went lower, as it does. When Wickhoff stood up for me before the Philosophical Society, it wrote that the Society printed its membership cards on yellow card, and that they lacked only the marks “by which in earlier, better times Jews were told from Christians.” I am an engraver’s son from Baumgarten. It makes no difference to them whom they mean.

Then Medicine, last spring. On the twenty-first of March deputies rose in parliament to ask the Minister whether he truly intended to buy the picture for the University. The public prosecutor had the number of Ver Sacrum with my sketches confiscated, as an offence against public morality. The Vienna court, on that same twenty-first of March, could not agree with him, and the paper was released.

The doctors had their say as well. Their weekly paper complained that I had painted medicine without its two achievements, prevention and cure. That is true. I painted what I had seen of it. My father and my brother Ernst died within one year, and nobody prevented or cured anything.

So I am, by ruling of the Landesgericht, not indecent. I am only ugly, and since this morning, insane.

There is a canvas in the corner with goldfish in it, and a red-haired woman who turns her backside to whoever is looking. That one is for them. But it is a small answer, and I have a larger one. It is not written down, because I am no hand at words. A letter costs me more than a ceiling. It is on a wall in the Friedrichstraße, thirty-four metres of it, and in five weeks they will be let in to see it.

They will find Madness there. I painted her in the autumn, on the end wall, between Sickness and Death. She was up there for months before the cafés thought of her.

II Casein

The Secession, the left-hand room, March 1902

They call the dome a cabbage. It is laurel, in gilded iron, and underneath it Olbrich built us a white box with a glass roof and walls that can be moved. The city gave permission for ten years. Over the door Hevesi’s sentence is set in gold: to every age its art, to art its freedom. Professor Jodl has now told us which art is not meant. Over the same door Olbrich set three Gorgon heads, one each for architecture, sculpture and painting. I have put three more inside.

The room on the left is the one people will enter first. It is long and bare, and everything I have done is overhead, a band a little higher than a man, along the top of three walls. I told Mizzi in November that tomorrow was my last day of work, and that I was glad. There is always another last day.

The wall is plaster over reed matting. I drew on it dry, in graphite, and painted over the drawing in casein, which is cheap and goes on thin as milk. Then the gold. And then what the catalogue will not list: cut glass, mirror, mother-of-pearl buttons, hollow brass rings. The knight’s sword is aluminium foil.

My father engraved gold for a living and never had any. I knew the leaf before I could draw: how it lifts on a breath, how it must be laid down and then left alone. For years I used it the way a jeweller does, a little, at the edge of things. Here I have let it take whole figures. The knight is gold, and the choir stands in it. Up close this is a cheap wall with buttons on it. From the door it burns.

None of it is meant to last. Hoffmann has built the rooms, twenty-one of us have painted and carved straight onto his walls, and when the exhibition closes the labourers will come and knock it all down. I have known this since the first line. I find I like it. For two years I have painted for a ministry and a faculty. A wall with a date to die has no committee, and nobody petitions a minister over something that will be rubble by July.

There are three walls, and they read in order.

On the first long wall, high up, the floating ones go by: thin women with their eyes shut and their arms stretched forward. The catalogue calls them the longing for happiness. Below them the weak are on their knees, a couple and a girl, begging a man in gold armour to go and fight for them. Behind him stand Ambition and Compassion, the two things that might make him go.

The short wall at the end belongs to what he must fight. I will come back to it.

On the last wall the floating ones return, and find a woman with a lyre. She is Poetry. After her there is nothing, a long stretch of bare plaster. Then come the Arts, women rising one above another and pointing the way. Then a choir in rows, and two people holding each other.

Half of what I have done here is plaster I left alone. People will ask whether I ran out of time. But nobody asks a composer why the orchestra has stopped playing. The floating figure is one figure, repeated, the way a tune is repeated. The white is where it rests.

III The Deaf Man

The same room

The exhibition is for Beethoven. Klinger is bringing him from Leipzig in marble. I have not put him in. There is not a face on my walls that is his, and not a note of music. Every parlour in Vienna has the scowl on the piano already.

What I have painted stands at four removes from him. Schiller wrote a poem. Beethoven set it. Wagner explained the setting for a concert in Dresden in 1846, with a line of Faust for each movement, beginning with Entbehren sollst du, sollst entbehren: you shall go without. He heard in the symphony a soul fighting for joy against a hostile power. I have painted Wagner’s explanation. Four men have had their hands on it, and I am the only one of them who has never set a word down about anything.

Wagner says the last movement opens with a harsh outcry and ends in the discovery that joy is what the world was made for. I do not know whether that is true of the world. It is a good shape for a room.

He is more a Viennese matter than they remember. The Ninth was first played here, on the seventh of May 1824, in the old theatre by the Kärntnertor. The Hotel Sacher stands on the spot now, a short walk from my wall. He was stone deaf. He stood among the players giving the tempo and turning the pages of his score, and the real conductor had told the orchestra to pay him no attention. When it was over he was still beating time. The story is that one of the singers, Unger, turned him round by hand, so that he could see the applause he could not hear.

I think about that more than I think about the music. A man facing the wrong way while the city shouts.

He distrusted my trade, too. On the Pastoral he wrote that it was more the expression of feeling than painting. He did not want the birds and the brook counted. I have returned the courtesy. There is no orchestra on my wall and no page of notes, only one lyre. It is more the expression of feeling than music.

It will be a hundred years this autumn since he sat in Heiligenstadt, out past the vineyards, and wrote to his brothers that he had come close to ending his life. He never sent it. One line of it has done more work on my wall than all of Wagner. Nur sie, die Kunst, sie hielt mich zurück. Only art held me back.

That is the programme of the room, in seven words. The catalogue will say it more grandly, that the arts lead us into an ideal realm. I would not put it so. I would say that a man can be in a bad way, and work, and be less so.

I have painted a musician once before. Three years ago I did Schubert at the piano for Dumba’s music room, with candlelight and girls in their good dresses. The papers loved it. Bahr wrote that it was the most beautiful picture an Austrian had ever painted. The painter is the same and the hand is the same. Only the city has changed its mind, and it took one year to do it.

His symphony runs for three movements without a word. Then a man stands up and sings that these are not the sounds we want. I have three walls, and the first two have no joy in them. I have understood that much of it.

IV The End Wall

The same room

They will hate the end wall most. That is why it is the best painted.

In the middle is Typhoeus, a giant ape with a serpent’s tail that runs the width of the wall. The catalogue says that even gods fought against him in vain. Beside him stand his daughters, the three Gorgons. Above them are Sickness, Madness and Death. On his other side are three women, and the catalogue gives their names as Lasciviousness, Wantonness and Intemperance. The last of them is fat and jewelled, and I have set real glass stones into her. Off to the side is a thin woman bent over herself. Her name is Gnawing Grief.

I did not paint the professors. A professor is not a force. I painted what stands behind them, and behind the deputies, and behind whoever it was that telephoned a servant this morning. Nobody up there has a face that you could take to court.

The floating ones pass over all of it. They do not fight. They go by above the ape’s head with their eyes shut and come out on the far side. I am told that this is not how a struggle is won. It is how I have got through two years.

They will ask about the knight. He stands on the first wall in his gold, with his sword of kitchen foil, and he has not moved yet. Armour is heavy. The weak are asking, and he is still deciding. They will want to know whose face he has, because in this town every face must be somebody’s, so that the somebody can be told at dinner. A face has to come from somewhere. I am not going to say where.

V Monday

The Secession, April 14, 1902, afternoon

The god has arrived. Klinger unveiled him on Saturday, and that night Wittgenstein gave a banquet at the Grand Hotel. The Minister of Education was among the guests. My professorship is somewhere in his ministry, unsigned.

Klinger gave more than fifteen years to this. Beethoven sits on a bronze throne, naked to the waist, leaning forward, with both fists shut. There is an eagle at his feet and there are angels’ heads in ivory on the throne. The marble is of several colours. He is very large and he is not happy. I like him better than Vienna will.

The others are making him a saint. Roller has painted the wall behind the throne, and the whole house has been arranged so that a visitor arrives before him as before an altar. I do not pray easily. What I can believe in is a man who was in a bad way and went on working. That is not a saint. It is nearer to a plasterer.

Hoffmann has cut an opening in my last wall, at the place where I left the plaster bare. Whoever stands in my room and looks through sees him for the first time from there, framed by nothing I painted. I did that deliberately. The best thing I could give him was a space.

Tonight is for the invited. Moll has asked his new son-in-law, and so the Director of the Court Opera will stand on the vestibule stairs with players from his orchestra and give us a piece of the Ninth without singers. Six trombones, I am told. The passage is Seid umschlungen, Millionen.

That is the stanza with my line in it. Diesen Kuss der ganzen Welt. This kiss for the whole world. It is printed in the catalogue under my last panel. Nobody arranged this, as far as I know. Mahler chose his bars and I chose mine, months apart, and they are the same bars.

Mahler will know why Beethoven saved the trombones for this stanza. I only know that it is the one where the poem looks up. Brüder, überm Sternenzelt muss ein lieber Vater wohnen. Brothers, above the tent of stars a loving father must live. Klinger has put that father on a throne in the next room, with his fists shut. Tonight the brass will tell him so from the stairs.

He was called a forger two years ago, for adding horns to this same symphony. Now he will take the voices out of it and see what they call him for that. The two Gustavs have the newspapers in common.

He married in March. I knew the bride when she was nineteen. Her stepfather and I very nearly fell out over it in Italy, and I wrote Moll a long letter, which for me is a serious thing. That is all there is to tell, and it is more than I like to say.

So I am standing under the last panel, waiting for the brass. Two people, naked, inside a bell of gold. His back is to the room, and you see nothing of her but her arms. The choir is behind them. I would defend the choir to any musician. It is rows of women who are all one woman, standing in flowers. A choir is many people agreeing to be one thing for four minutes, so I have painted them as a pattern. After the ape and the Gorgons and everything on the end wall, this is all I have to set against it. It does not look like much of an argument. It is the one Beethoven chose too.

I am not finished with those two.

VI June

Vienna, June 1902

The notices are in, and Bahr has more for his book.

One was printed the day before we opened, signed only with an o. It finds my Lust and my Unchastity painted with such realism that the result is artistic self-defilement in the boldest sense of the word. Another, signed Sch-r., reports that nudities predominate, and in a manner not permitted until now.

Dr. Hirschfeld, writing for Frankfurt on the twentieth of April, says my frescoes would suit a temple to Krafft-Ebing, and that they are among the most extreme things ever achieved in the field of obscene art. Berlin’s Vossische Zeitung calls them painted fixed ideas. Hirschfeld sees an orang-utan on my end wall. A gentleman who signs himself S. G. sees a gorilla there, and asks whether there are no men left in Vienna to protest against such assaults. I painted one ape, and they cannot agree which. The Salonblatt would like to meet the father, brother or husband who does not walk out with his daughter, his sister or his wife. And in May, in the upper house, Count Montecuccoli spoke against the secessionist excrescences in the fine arts, and said the Ministry ought not to support such art in any way.

They come regardless, in their tens of thousands, and they bring their daughters. I go in sometimes and stand at the back. They look longest at the end wall. A man will stand before the three vices with his hat in his hand for a good while, and then go home and write to the papers that he was assaulted. The exhibition was to close on the fifteenth. It will run to the twenty-seventh.

A flat graphic illustration: a crowd of gentlemen in black, hats in hand, stares up at three painted women on a crimson frieze. The crowd’s silhouette forms the shape of a giant ape.
The end wall, and the men who came to be assaulted by it.

On the fifth Frau Zuckerkandl brought Rodin. He had been in Prague and was on his way home. He stood under the walls for some time without speaking, and then he took me by both hands. She will tell what he said better than I can, and she will improve it. What I kept is that he told me I know my craft. From him I will take that over a chair at the Academy. I think he was looking at the drawing more than at the idea.

Hevesi has written that to destroy this room would be a severe loss for Austrian art. I have said since October that I am content for it to go. I notice that I no longer say it.

And this week, in the night, at a quarter to three, Mizzi had a boy. He came unexpectedly. She had moved too briskly, probably. The birth was hard, but the doctor we had sent for as a precaution did not need to touch her. I wrote to her mother the way I write everything, short: “Mother and son – and father are well.” We are calling him Otto.

VII September

Vienna, September 1902

Otto died on the eleventh. He was not three months old. It was a catarrh of the stomach and bowels, the kind that takes them in summer.

I have drawn him. It is the only thing I know how to do with a face.

The exhibition closed at the end of June. Klinger’s Beethoven has gone back to Germany. The others’ walls have been cleared. Mine are still up. The Secession wants to show my work next year, and so they have left the room as it is.

I went in this week. The glass roof needs washing and the light was brown. Nobody else was there. The deaf man wrote that art held him back. I do not know that it holds anybody. I know where I went.

So Madness is still on the end wall, where I put her before the city thought of her. The knight has still not moved. The two in the gold bell are still holding on. The labourers were to come in June.

Whoever wants to know something about me should go and look. It is still there.

Afterward

Klimt could not see past that September, so the rest is ours to tell.

The professorship was never ratified, and he was never offered a teaching post again. Hermann Bahr published his clippings in 1903 as Gegen Klimt, “Against Klimt.” It is the reason the attacks can be quoted to the day. It is also, as the historian Ilona Sármány-Parsons points out, a polemic by Klimt’s own side. Its excerpts are often quoted out of context, she notes, and Bahr left out Kraus and the most measured review.

The wall outlived its sentence. After the 1903 show a collector had the frieze sawn into eight pieces and taken down. It passed to the Lederer family, was seized from them in 1938, and was sold to the Republic in 1973. Since 1986 it has hung in the Secession’s basement. Philosophy, the picture the professors fought to keep off a permanent ceiling, burned at Immendorf Castle in 1945. Of the two, it was the wall with a date to die that survived.

He was not finished with the couple. The Klimt Foundation calls The Kiss, finished in 1909, a further development of “this very motif,” and he used it once more in the Stoclet Frieze. The Foundation also names the Beethoven wall as the place where his flatness, gold leaf and line reached “a first climax.”

We do not know whether Klimt heard Mahler’s trombones that evening. We do know why the passage suited them. In Beethoven’s score the trombones are silent in the finale until bar 594, where Seid umschlungen begins.

In 1872 Nietzsche had dared his readers to “change Beethoven’s ‘jubilee-song’ into a painting,” and promised that whoever managed it would “approach the Dionysian.” Whether Klimt ever read the line is not recorded. He painted it anyway, on plaster, with buttons, expecting it to be gone by July.

In 2019, seven years before this essay, its editor took up the same dare.

A soft, gold and violet image in which dark-haired figures drift from right to left across a pale ground.

to frieze beethoven to capture
the anguish of the eternal longing
for imagined joy    art conjures
the blank canvas of youth
imprinting the inexpressible
as dionysian truth

Poem and image by Michael Cummins, 2019, from humofthoughts.com.

⁂

How This Was Made

Invented: Klimt’s voice and everything he thinks. That includes his knowing the Heiligenstadt letter and the story of the 1824 premiere, his reading of the bare plaster as musical rests, his liking for the doomed wall, his view of the end wall as an answer to his critics, and his refusal to say whose face the knight has. Goldfish is dated 1901/02; placing it in the studio on March 8 is a guess. So is placing Klimt in the room on the afternoon of April 14.

Documented: every date, every material, and every quotation from someone else. No one but Klimt is given a word they are not recorded as saying or writing.

WhatRests on
The asylum rumour of March 8, 1902, and the unsigned professorshipHermann Bahr, preface to Gegen Klimt (1903)
The attacks on Philosophy and Medicine, the petition, the court ruling of March 21, 1901Gegen Klimt; Sármány-Parsons, Index Journal (2022)
The 1902 reviews: Hirschfeld, the Vossische Zeitung, S. G., the Salonblatt, MontecuccoliGegen Klimt, pp. 93–102
The frieze: size, materials, catalogue titles, Beethoven not depictedKlimt Foundation; the Secession
Wagner’s 1846 programmeKlimt Foundation; the Secession on Google Arts & Culture
The 1824 premiere and its siteBeethoven-Haus Bonn; Interlude
“Only art held me back,” October 1802, never sentThe Heiligenstadt Testament
Schubert at the Piano and Bahr’s praiseKlimt Foundation
“More the expression of feeling than painting”Beethoven’s note on the Pastoral, as given by the Berliner Philharmoniker
Mahler, six trombones, the vestibule stairs, April 14Mahler Foundation concert register
Trombones silent until bar 594David Levy, Historic Brass Society Journal (2017)
Rodin’s words to KlimtBerta Zuckerkandl’s memoirs, published 1970; one person’s later account
Otto Zimmermann, and Klimt’s letterKlimt Foundation
The knight as the painter himself: “no (historical) proof”Klimt Foundation

Sources: Hermann Bahr, Rede über Klimt / Gegen Klimt, ed. Claus Pias (VDG Weimar, 2009; first published 1901 and 1903); Ilona Sármány-Parsons, “1900—Pyrrhic Victory: The Press Campaigns Surrounding the Faculty Paintings”, Index Journal 4 (2022); M. Bitsori and E. Galanakis, “Doctors versus artists: Gustav Klimt’s Medicine”, BMJ 325 (2002); Klimt Foundation, Klimt Database: Klimt’s work of 1901 to 1903, 1898 to 1900, 1907 to 1909, the Zimmermanns, Max Klinger, Auguste Rodin and Klimt in Italy; The Secession: the Beethoven Frieze, the building, and the frieze on Google Arts & Culture; Albertina Museum, Klimt’s studies for “Fulfillment” and The Kiss; Beethoven-Haus Bonn, the Kärntnertor theatre; the Heiligenstadt Testament, October 6 and 10, 1802; “200th Anniversary of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony”, Interlude; Berliner Philharmoniker, programme note on the Pastoral Symphony; Mahler Foundation, 1902 concert register; David B. Levy, “Vox dei: Referential Meaning in Beethoven’s Use of the Trombone in His Symphonies”, Historic Brass Society Journal (2017); Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy (1872), trans. Wm. A. Haussmann (1910). Drafted with Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Fable 5.2. Images generated for this essay by Gemini Argon.

IVY UNDER FUJI

Intellimmersion · No. 1

On a name over a shop door in Edo, the man it belonged to, and who answers for what goes out of it

The story of the Edo print shop that published Utamaro and Sharaku, told in the order it happened and only from what the records show.

Kishi no Yanagi (“The Willow on the Bank”), part 1: a nagauta by Kineya Shōjirō III (1827–1896), written decades after Tsutaya, for the shamisen of the kabuki stage he printed. Played without voice by Kineya Gosaburō I, with Kineya Gosō on the upper part; Victor 52944, 1934. National Diet Library, public domain.

“… if my design is engraved by a good engraver, that encourages me to work …”Katsushika Hokusai, in a letter to his publishers, as reproduced in Edmond de Goncourt’s Hokusai (1896)

I The Sign

Hokusai’s page: the front of Tsutaya’s shop, a curtain reading Kōshodō with an ivy leaf over the door, a signboard marked with the ivy leaf under Fuji, advertisements hanging at the right, and customers at the counters.
Hokusai, Print and Book Store, from Ehon Azuma asobi, 1802. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

The page is small, about twenty centimetres by fifteen, and it shows a shop front in Edo, the city now called Tokyo. Katsushika Hokusai drew it for a book of comic verse that was printed in ink in 1799 and reissued in colour in 1802.

Over the entrance hangs a curtain with the shop’s name, Kōshodō, and an ivy leaf. At the door stands a signboard with a man’s name on it: Tsutaya Jūzaburō. Beside it, advertisements are set out for a book by the novelist Santō Kyōden and for collections of kyōka, the comic thirty-one-syllable verse then in fashion. Colour prints are laid out inside.

The man who made that name died in 1797, two years before Hokusai first drew the page, and the picture is thought to show the shop as it stands after his death. The firm has gone on without him, selling the kind of thing he built it on: Kyōden’s books, the verse, the prints. Edo calls it by his name. Tsutaya means the Ivy Shop.

The page asks the question the shop was built around. When a sheet goes out of this door, whose is it, and who answers for it? To see how the sign came to say what it says, go back to a gate.

II The Gate

A page from a Tsutaya album of 1783–84: a courtesan playing the shamisen, a second seated beside her and a young attendant kneeling in front, with poems in calligraphy above.
Kitao Masanobu (Santō Kyōden), the courtesans Azumaya and Kokonoe of the Matsukaneya with a young attendant, from A Competition Among the New Beauties of the Yoshiwara Mirrored in Their Writing, published by Tsutaya, 1783–84. New York Public Library.

The gate is the Ōmon, the great gate of the Yoshiwara, the licensed pleasure quarter on the edge of Edo, and the only way in or out. A moat runs round the quarter. Visitors come along an embankment, turn down a slope at a willow, and follow a road that bends so that the quarter cannot be seen from the embankment until they are almost there. Men leaving are said to stop at that willow and look back, and it is called the looking-back willow.

Tsutaya was born inside the gate in 1750. By twenty-four he is working from the front of a cousin’s teahouse at the entrance, in a small shop just outside the gate that rents and sells books.

What he sells first is information. Among his stock is the Yoshiwara saiken, a guide to the quarter’s houses and the women in them, published by Urokogataya. In 1774 he joins the publishers’ guild and buys the rights to print other kinds of guides to the quarter, and by Andreas Marks’s account he is soon bringing out the saiken together with Urokogataya. Among the first books he publishes is A Thousand at a Glance, which likens the women to flowers and plants, magnolias and wasabi among them. It is lavishly made, and the houses and their customers may have paid for it.

A guide is only as good as its latest names. After several years in business he has the sources to keep his up to date, among them his father, who works in the district. In 1783 he publishes a guide of his own, Five-Needled Pines, and from then on the guides are his alone.

In the same years the shop sells pictures of the quarter’s women as well as lists of them. One album of its leading courtesans sets a poem in each woman’s own hand above her portrait. It is drawn by a twenty-two-year-old who signs himself Kitao Masanobu. Edo will know him better as the novelist Santō Kyōden.

It is a trade learned at a gate. He sells people what they want to know just before they need to know it.

III The Ivy Shop

A double page from Utamaro’s Picture Book of Selected Insects, 1788: bamboo shoots and roses, with a mole cricket and an earwig, and comic verses in calligraphy.
Utamaro, Mole Cricket; Earwig, from Ehon mushi erami, 1788. The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

In the ninth month of 1783, at thirty-three, he moves to Tōriabura-chō in Nihonbashi, where the major publishers keep their shops. He buys the premises and storehouses of an old firm, Maruya Kohei. The business is called Kōshodō, and from then on, by Laurence Binyon’s account, an ivy leaf beneath a triple peak is printed on what he publishes.

Yoshiwara, the gatethe first shop, about 1774Tōriabura-chōKōshodō, from 1783NihonbashiEdo CastleSumida Riverembankmentabout 4 km
The move of 1783, from the gate of the Yoshiwara to Tōriabura-chō. A schematic map drawn for this page from the sites’ modern positions, not a map of the period. A marker stands at the site of the Nihonbashi shop, in today’s Nihonbashi Ōdenmachō.

The next year he is in a picture, and everyone else in it is in costume. Yoshiwara daitsūe, a comic book of 1784 written and drawn by Koikawa Harumachi, shows the kyōka poets meeting. Tsutaya is among them, because he is one: under the name Tsuta no Karamaru he writes the comic verse, and he publishes the collections of the men he writes beside. All the poets are dressed up. He is at the bottom left in an ordinary kimono, with writing tools and a book.

The shop lives on books: illustrated comic novels, albums of verse, the guides. The house fills with younger men. Binyon describes young men of talent who gather there and work for him alone, in return for food, clothing and lodging. He names Utamaro, who has been designing for him since the early 1780s, Kyōden and the poet Shokusanjin, and, later, the young novelist Bakin.

At New Year 1788 the shop issues Utamaro’s Picture Book of Selected Insects: two volumes of comic verse on insects and on love, with pages of flowers, vegetables and small creatures. A copy that once belonged to Joseph Banks is in the British Museum. Its catalogue says the production “was probably conceived and arranged by the publisher Tsutaya Juzaburo.”

That “probably” is as far as the records will go. They say what Tsutaya published. They seldom say what he proposed.

IV The Reforms

“Our sales, which have relied upon Kyōden’s books, were sure to plummet.”Foreword to Santō Kyōden’s Hakoiri musume menya ningyō, New Year 1791, signed with Tsutaya’s verse name, Tsuta no Karamaru, and written, by the Tokyo Metropolitan Library’s account, by Kyōden himself; translated by Matthew Meyer

The opening page of Hakoiri musume menya ningyō, 1791: a man in a robe with an ivy-leaf crest kneels and bows to the reader, beneath the ivy leaf and Fuji mark, surrounded by the text of the foreword.
The foreword to Kyōden’s Hakoiri musume menya ningyō, 1791, with the publisher drawn on his knees beneath his own mark. Tokyo Metropolitan Library.

By then the government has changed. From 1787 Matsudaira Sadanobu leads a programme of thrift and discipline known as the Kansei reforms, and the shop’s kind of book is soon in danger.

In 1789 the shop publishes a satire on the samurai. Its author is Koikawa Harumachi, the man who drew Tsutaya in plain clothes five years before. The authorities summon him. He dies soon after, possibly by his own hand.

In 1790 the rules tighten. From the fifth month no new book may be published without special permission, and an order of the eleventh month sends the drawings for prints to be approved before they are cut. From 1791 a small seal reading kiwame, “examined”, is cut into the key block, so that every impression carries it.

At New Year 1791 the shop issues a new book by Kyōden, Hakoiri musume menya ningyō. It opens with a foreword in the publisher’s voice, signed with his verse name and drawn with him on his knees beneath his own mark. Kyōden, it explains, has lost heart after public criticism; the shop’s sales are sure to plummet; and so the publisher has begged his old friend for one more book. It is a joke. Kyōden, fined in 1789 for illustrating a banned book, wrote the foreword himself.

Later that year the blow falls on the shop itself. It has published three books by Kyōden about life in the pleasure quarters. Kyōden is put in manacles for fifty days. The trade’s own examiners, who passed the books, are banished from Edo. Tsutaya, by most accounts, has half of what he owns seized.

The record does not say what the shop looks like the next morning. It does say who was punished. The officials of 1791 had a clear idea of who makes a book. They punished the man who wrote it, the men who passed it, and the man who decided it should exist. The accounts mention no carver and no printer.

Two years later he is still selling Kyōden. At New Year 1793 a collection of comic verse for the season, Dōre hyakunin isshu, carries a poem by Tsuta no Karamaru:

青本の春は来にけりひとはけに霞むあなたの山東より

Spring has come
for the blue-covered books,
hazing in at a stroke of the brush
from over there,
east of the mountain.

Santō, “east of the mountain”, is Kyōden’s pen name; the translation is ours. The foreword of 1791 was written for the publisher by his author. This poem is the publisher’s own, and he uses it to announce his author.

V Close-ups

“Thoughtfully drawn by Utamaro the physiognomist”The signature on Fujo ninsō juppon, the series of the print shown here, about 1792–93; translated by John Fiorillo

Colour woodblock print by Utamaro, about 1792–93: a young woman blowing a glass popen, shown half-length.
Utamaro, Young Woman Blowing a Popen, from Ten Classes of Women’s Physiognomy, about 1792–93. The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

With books grown dangerous, the shop turns to prints. That is the account of Momoka Komatsu, writing for Keio University’s museum, and the dates bear her out.

About 1792 it begins to issue portraits of women by Utamaro in a format that is new for him: the figure shown half-length, the head large, the ground behind dusted with mica. Tsutaya, Komatsu writes, had recognised Utamaro’s talent in their books of comic verse. The series titles promise a study of women’s characters from their faces. The ivy leaf is printed after the signature, and the portraits make Utamaro famous.

Look at one. The Metropolitan Museum’s sheet is about thirty-nine centimetres by twenty-seven. A young woman fills it from the waist up, turning as she lifts a glass noisemaker, a popen, to her lips. Her kimono is a pink check scattered with small flowers. Behind her there is nothing but a pale ground. In a cartouche at the upper right the series title, Ten Classes of Women’s Physiognomy, stands beside the signature quoted above, and under the signature is the shop’s mark, the ivy leaf under Fuji. No name is given for her.

In 1793 the authorities forbid naming women other than courtesans on such prints. For a time the names are hinted at in picture-puzzles, until in 1796 the puzzles are banned too.

The format has worked. In the spring of 1794 the shop will try it on the stage.

VI The Commission

“… a keen sense of fashion and of the mood of the market …”Andreas Marks, on what a publisher needed, quoted by Martin Laflamme in the Asian Review of Books, October 27, 2026

Colour woodblock print by Sharaku, 1794, on a dark mica ground: the actor Ōtani Oniji III as the servant Edobei, with a leering face, bristling hair and outstretched hands; below the signature, a seal and the ivy leaf under Fuji.
Sharaku, Ōtani Oniji III as Yakko Edobei, 1794. Below the signature, the censor’s seal and the ivy leaf under Fuji. The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Spring, 1794. The shop wants the same close-up for the stage. This is Komatsu’s account too: Tsutaya takes what has been worked out in Utamaro’s women and applies it to kabuki actors, half-length against mica, with no flattery. The designer is a name nobody knows.

Utamaro’s young woman blowing a popen, about 1792–93, half-length against a pale ground.Sharaku’s actor Ōtani Oniji III as Edobei, 1794, half-length against dark mica.
The same close-up, from the same shop: Utamaro’s woman of about 1792–93, and Sharaku’s actor of 1794. Both sheets are in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

What follows is the usual path of a print in these years, as the museums describe it. It is the trade’s practice, not a record of this one sheet. It begins with a decision, which the publisher has made: the market judged, the subject settled, the artist hired. The rest of the work follows from it.

The designer draws the whole composition in black ink on a thin sheet of paper. He may write notes and directions on it.

The drawing goes to a workshop. There it is pasted face down on a block of smooth cherrywood, sometimes with oil on the paper to make the lines show. The paper is pulled away. It is strong and fibrous, and a thin layer stays on the wood with the outlines showing through. The carver cuts away all the wood around the lines and leaves them standing.

The drawing is gone. It was normally destroyed in the carving of the key block. Detail too fine for a brush to settle, such as the separate hairs of a wig, is left to the carver’s judgment, and the great majority of prints do not name him.

A black-line proof comes off the block. The printers brush sumi ink onto the raised lines, lay a damp sheet on the block and rub the back hard with a baren, a pad of twisted cord in a bamboo sheath. One proof goes to the censor. Another goes back to the designer, who colours it by hand. From his coloured proof the carver cuts more blocks, one for each colour, each with registration marks so that every pass falls in place.

Here one account lets the designer go: “he was not involved in the printing process.” Another brings him back once more. When the blocks are ready, the publisher and the designer go to the printer’s for the trial printing. The colours go on one at a time, ten impressions or more for an ordinary colour print, the sheet fitted into the marks and rubbed again each time. The printer mixes the colours toward a result the three of them have agreed. When a trial sheet is right, it becomes the model for the run.

For these sheets there is one more pass, and it costs. A dark mica ground of this kind was, in the words of a Christie’s catalogue, “an exceptional feat of printing requiring a specialised studio and major financing.” David Bull, a printmaker in Tokyo who has reproduced a Sharaku, describes how it is done today. The ground goes down first as a flat colour. Then, on the same block, he brushes on thinned glue in place of pigment, lays the sheet down and rubs lightly, so that the glue stays on the surface. He masks the figure, taps mica powder over the sheet through a strainer, and sweeps off the loose powder with a very soft brush. Then he holds it up to the light. That is a modern hand at the bench, not a record of 1794, but it is how the glitter gets onto the paper.

The Edobei print in five stages, left to right: the outlines of the key block; the solid blacks; the reds and the stripes; the remaining colours; the mica ground, which completes the sheet.
The Edobei in the order of printing: the key block, the blacks, the reds and stripes, the remaining colours, and last the mica ground. This is a digital separation of the Metropolitan Museum’s photograph, made for this page. It shows the order of the work, not the printer’s own blocks.

About two hundred sheets, the usual edition of a design, can be printed in a day.

The sources here give no price for these sheets. A decade later, in 1805, a large sheet sold for twenty mon, by the Hoover Institution’s account, a little more than the sixteen it gives for a bowl of soba. Finely printed sheets, it adds, sold for several times as much.

In the fifth month of 1794, twenty-eight sheets go on sale. They show actors in that month’s plays at the city’s three leading theatres, each half-length against black mica, in a fine, exact line and few colours. All twenty-eight are in the large ōban size, which the Adachi print workshop in Tokyo calls “highly unusual for a newly emerging artist.” They do not flatter. Noses are large, and Segawa Kikunojō III, an actor of women’s roles, is shown heavy and middle-aged.

One that survives, in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, shows Ichikawa Omezō I as the servant Ippei: 378 by 253 millimetres, a dark mica ground, signed Tōshūsai Sharaku ga, with the seal, kiwame, that says it has been examined. Another, in the Metropolitan Museum, shows Ōtani Oniji III as Edobei, a servant and a robber in the same play, leaning in with his fingers spread. A sheet of these years usually carries three marks. The third is the publisher’s. On Sharaku’s sheets it is an ivy leaf beneath the three peaks of Mount Fuji.

12345
10 cm
The sheets at true scale to one another: (1) Hokusai’s page, about 20 by 15 centimetres; (2) Utamaro’s popen, 38.9 by 27.5; (3) Sharaku’s Edobei, an ōban, 38.1 by 25.1; (4) Sharaku’s narrow sheet, 30.5 by 14.4; (5) for comparison, a sheet of letter paper, 27.9 by 21.6. Dimensions from the holding museums.

VII Ten Months

“It is rhetoric, not the profound and tragic poetry of Sharaku, nor the subtle and decadent lyric strain of Utamaro.”Arthur Davison Ficke, on Toyokuni, Chats on Japanese Prints (1915)

A narrow full-length Sharaku print of 1794 on a yellow ground: the actor Sawamura Sōjūrō III in a black robe with two swords and a fan, the signature, round seal and ivy-under-Fuji mark at the upper left.
Sharaku, Sawamura Sōjūrō III as Nagoya Sanza Motoharu, a narrow full-length sheet of 1794. Art Institute of Chicago.

Edo’s answer comes in pieces, and the pieces do not agree. By one account the public reacts poorly. Yet the first sheets exist in variant printings, which suggests that they went back to the blocks and sold fairly well.

The later sheets are different. In the seventh and eighth months come narrow sheets of full-length figures, mostly on yellowish grounds. By the eleventh month there are trees and stage scenery behind the actors, and the signature has shrunk to Sharaku. The last fifteen designs appear in the first month of 1795. Then nothing. More than a hundred and forty designs have come out in about ten months.

The records do not say why they stop. The Ukiyo-e ruikō, an early chronicle of print designers, says only that he drew the actors too truthfully, and that his career was short for it. One later theory points to his thinning access to the theatres and their actors.

Who he was has been argued over ever since. Fifty years on, in 1844, the Edo chronicler Saitō Gesshin writes that Sharaku had been a Noh actor named Saitō Jūrōbei, in the service of the lord of Awa. An actor of that name appears in a Noh programme of 1816, and some scholars now treat the identification as settled. Others are less sure. Among the theories that have been set aside is that Sharaku was Tsutaya himself.

In 1802, the year of Hokusai’s colour edition, the novelist Shikitei Sanba draws the print designers and their schools as a map. Sharaku is on it as an island, by himself, with no followers.

Whoever held the brush, this much is fixed. Every print attributed to Sharaku was published by one shop, in ten months, beginning in a format that shop had already tried.

VIII The Leaf

Tsutaya falls ill in 1796 and dies on the sixth day of the fifth month of 1797, the last day of May by our calendar. He is forty-seven, and the cause is probably beriberi. His gravestone, as Hisako Kobayashi reads it, says that his spirit was high and that he was generous and greatly respected. In 1834 the novelist Bakin, who once lodged with him, writes that he “was admired by many talented persons,” and that it was rare for anyone from the Yoshiwara to make a fortune.

The shop does not close, and the name does not die with him. His head clerk, Yūsuke, carries the firm on, by Binyon’s account while the heir is a minor, and by Andreas Marks’s he takes the name: he becomes the second Tsutaya Jūzaburō. The firm lasts, at a new address, into the middle of the next century, though Binyon says it sinks to a comparatively insignificant position.

Triptych by Utamaro, 1804: Hideyoshi and his five wives viewing cherry blossoms at Rakutō.
Utamaro, A View of the Pleasures of the Taiko and His Five Wives at Rakutō, 1804. Not a Tsutaya sheet: the publisher’s mark at the foot of each panel is not the ivy leaf. The British Museum, which holds another impression, notes that it is not clear whether this design was the direct cause of Utamaro’s sentence. The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

So back to the small page of 1802: the sign, the advertisements for Kyōden and the verse, the prints laid out inside. A sheet from that shop makes three claims. The signature says who drew it, and in 1804 the man who signed would answer for it: Utamaro, by the usual account, spent fifty days in manacles over prints of the warlord Hideyoshi. The seal says it was examined. The leaf says who stands behind it, and in 1791 that had already been tested.

At Hokusai’s door the sign gives one name, and it is the publisher’s. The man is gone; the name still answers.

What the record does not say

What Tsutaya proposed, as against what he published.

What the shop looked like on the morning after the penalty of 1791.

The names of the men who carved and printed these sheets.

The drawings themselves, which the carving destroyed.

What a Sharaku sheet cost in 1794.

Why Sharaku stopped, and, beyond argument, who he was.

What Tsutaya thought of any of it, beyond one New Year poem and a foreword his author wrote for him.

Intellimmersion is Intellicurean’s series of documented stories, each told in the order it happened and closed with the sources it rests on. No scene in this one is invented. The present tense is a way of telling, not a claim to have seen anything, and where the sources are silent the text says so. Sources: Hokusai’s page, Tokyo Metropolitan Library and Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Tsutaya’s life, the guides, his father, A Thousand at a Glance, Five-Needled Pines, the plain kimono and the Edobei, Nippon.com, with its Japanese series on the penalty of 1791, and Waraku web on the writing tools; Urokogataya and the succession, Wikipedia, citing Andreas Marks and Peter Kornicki; Laurence Binyon (Japanese Colour Prints) on the premises, the trademark, the lodgers, the heir and the firm’s decline, Hisako Kobayashi on the gravestone, and Bakin, all as quoted by the Lyon Collection; the album of courtesans, Princeton University Library’s Graphic Arts blog; Utamaro’s close-ups, the naming ban and the stage portraits, Momoka Komatsu at Keio University; the British Museum on the Insect Book and the Hideyoshi triptych; the Fitzwilliam sheet, Fitzwilliam Museum; the play shared by Ippei and Edobei, the Metropolitan Museum (Ippei, Edobei); the printing process, the Asian Art Museum, the Adachi Foundation and JAANUS; the mica ground today, David Bull’s Encyclopedia of Woodblock Printmaking; the cost of the mica ground, a Christie’s catalogue; the ōban format, the Adachi print workshop; the Ukiyo-e ruikō, Saitō Gesshin and the counts, John Fiorillo’s Viewing Japanese Prints; Sharaku by period, the variant printings, the large noses and Sanba’s map, Wikipedia; the gate, the moat, the embankment and the willow, the National Diet Library’s Landmarks of Japan; his birth in the quarter and the cousin’s teahouse, the Japan Times; the rules of 1790, the examiners’ exile, the ban of 1793 on names and the ban of 1796 on picture-puzzles, John Fiorillo’s notes on censorship; the kiwame seal, JAANUS; the poem of 1793, Waraku web, in Intellicurean’s translation; the date of his death in both calendars, Waraku web; the price of a sheet and of a bowl of soba, the Hoover Institution’s Fanning the Flames; Segawa Kikunojō III, John Fiorillo’s page on Sharaku; the site of the Nihonbashi shop, Waraku web; the sizes of the sheets, the holding museums, with the narrow Sharaku from the Art Institute of Chicago. Months are those of the Japanese calendar of the time, which ran about a month behind ours: Tsutaya died on the sixth day of the fifth month of 1797, which was May 31. Epigraphs: Katsushika Hokusai’s letter, as given at Japanese Arts from Goncourt’s Hokusai; the foreword to Hakoiri musume menya ningyō, in Matthew Meyer’s translation, with the Tokyo Metropolitan Library’s note on its authorship; John Fiorillo’s essay on Utamaro and physiognomy; Martin Laflamme’s review of Andreas Marks’s The Japanese Woodblock Prints Companion; Arthur Davison Ficke, Chats on Japanese Prints (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1915). Prints: The Metropolitan Museum of Art (Insect Book, Popen, Edobei, triptych), all Open Access; the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; the New York Public Library; the Tokyo Metropolitan Library; the Art Institute of Chicago. Music: Kishi no Yanagi, part 1, by Kineya Shōjirō III, from a 1934 practice record for shamisen alone by Kineya Gosaburō I and Kineya Gosō (Victor 52944), held by the National Diet Library and in the public domain; it was written decades after Tsutaya’s death and is looped here for reading. Drafted with Claude Fable 5.1 and revised with Claude Opus 5.5; literary editing by Claude Sonnet 5.5; cold read by Claude Fable 5.2; the interactive layers built with Claude Opus 5.5. Header image generated with Gemini Argon; the eight prints are reproduced from the collections named above. The map, the scale view, the shop’s mark and the separation of the Edobei into stages were drawn for this page.

NOT YET A BOOK

Serial Fiction and the Version That Never Stays Put

In 1875 a Lisbon review began printing a young novelist’s book while he was abroad, still asking for proofs. The serial ran 160 pages; he rewrote it twice, into 674. From Smollett to Joyce, a serial novel is a draft the world gets to read, and to interfere with.

I

The Draft in Public

In February 1875 a young Portuguese novelist was in Newcastle while his novel went to press in Lisbon.

A page of the Revista Ocidental, Lisbon, 1875, printing O Crime do Padre Amaro by Eça de Queirós
O Crime do Padre Amaro in the Revista Ocidental, Lisbon, 1875: the serial its author called a borrão.

Eça de Queirós had left the manuscript of O Crime do Padre Amaro with his friend Batalha Reis, who was seeing it into the Revista Ocidental. He had read the proofs of the first part. On 8 February he wrote that it was “absolutamente necessário” that he see a second set of proofs. The review printed the first instalment on 15 February without waiting for him, and the chapter numbers came out irregular. Eleven days later he wrote again: “Eu dou-vos um borrão de romance – e vocês em lugar de publicar o romance publicam o borrão!” I give you the rough draft of a novel, and instead of the novel you publish the draft. He demanded that the review declare it had printed the text without his revision. What the editors eventually printed was politer: a note explaining that, being abroad, he had been unable to direct the publication himself or make the important changes he intended. By 15 May the serial was over, and over the next five years he rewrote it twice.

He had once been on the other side of the form. In 1870 he and Ramalho Ortigão had run a novel in the Diário de Notícias as unsigned letters to the editor, presented as a true story. Five years later the form had turned on him. Nor is any of this a Portuguese curiosity: half the top ten of this year’s Guardian list of the best novels of all time began as serials.

A serial novel is not a book arriving in slices. It is a book that does not yet exist, read while it can still be changed. Between the first number and the last, an editor can cut it, a state can burn it, its author can start again, and its readers, by buying or not, can decide whether there will be a next number at all. The book we read afterwards is not the original. It is the survivor.

II

Before the Book

A knight in full armour rides out across the English countryside to right wrongs, a Quixote for the monthly trade. He first appeared in January 1760, in the opening number of The British Magazine, and he rode on month by month for two years in The Life and Adventures of Sir Launcelot Greaves. The book followed in 1762. The magazine’s editor was Tobias Smollett, and so was the novel’s author.

Reference books call it the first original serialised novel in English; the record of earlier serial publishing is murkier than that, and the title matters less than the arrangement. Smollett sat at both ends of the pipe. He wrote the chapters, and he edited the magazine that carried them. In most of the cases that follow, the author and the editor are different people, and what passes between them, a proof, a refusal, a note to the readers, is the history of the form.

The knight carries a second lesson. A serial must promise a next number, so its hero has to be left somewhere he can be found again: on a road, in a quarrel, one step short of an answer. Greaves rides out in January and must ride out again in February. A book can end. A serial, whatever its author intends, can only stop.

III

Between Numbers

Charles Dickens did not set out to write a novel. In the spring of 1836 he was writing text to accompany the sporting plates of an artist named Robert Seymour, to be issued in monthly numbers. On 20 April Seymour shot himself, having finished seven plates. The publishers tried a second artist, Robert Buss, who drew the June number and was dropped. In July they hired Hablot Knight Browne, not yet twenty-one and later known as Phiz, and in the same number Dickens introduced a new character, Sam Weller.

The early numbers had sold poorly; Chapman and Hall printed 1,000 copies of the first. After Weller arrived, circulation leapt, and by the end they were printing 40,000. Nothing in this was planned. A suicide, a dismissal, a hire and a servant with a gift for talk, all inside a few months, turned a failing commission into the book that made Dickens. To write to the number is to let the gap between instalments do some of the writing.

The calendar worked on the author as well. His sister-in-law, Mary Hogarth, died on 7 May 1837. That June there was no number of Pickwick and none of Oliver Twist, the second serial he was writing at the time. It was the only occasion in his life on which Dickens missed a publication date. One death stopped two serials. A book can wait for its author’s grief. A serial has a month, and the month is part of the text.

George Eliot answered the number another way. Middlemarch came out in eight parts between December 1871 and December 1872, at first every two months and then monthly. Where Pickwick found its shape on the road, Middlemarch reached its readers as its author had planned it, and nobody, so far as the record shows, cut, refused or burned a page of it.

Even so, its readers could not see the plan. Henry James, reviewing it for the Galaxy in March 1873, remembered the suspense of the parts: “We can well remember how keenly we wondered, while its earlier chapters unfolded themselves, what turn in the way of form the story would take—that of an organized, moulded, balanced composition, gratifying the reader with a sense of design and construction, or a mere chain of episodes, broken into accidental lengths and unconscious of the influence of a plan.” With the book finished, he settled on “a treasure-house of details, but it is an indifferent whole.”

The two novelists faced one condition. Between one number and the next, nobody knows what the book is: not the reader, and not always the author. Dickens made that ignorance his engine. Eliot kept a plan and still could not spare her readers the question. In each case, for a year or more, the book was a draft the world held in its hands, asking what it would turn out to be.

IV

Who Owns the Draft

If the serial is a draft in public, the question is who may touch it. Four parties had a say. The editor worked with a pencil, the state with a match, the author with a second draft. The reader had a purse.

In Moscow the editor ended the novel himself. Anna Karenina had begun in Mikhail Katkov’s Russian Messenger in January 1875, a month before Eça’s first instalment in Lisbon. Part Seven, which ends with Anna’s death, concluded in April 1877. Part Eight follows Vronsky to the war in Serbia; it is also where Levin, so near despair that he hides a rope from himself, hears a peasant say of an old neighbour, “He lives for his soul,” and finds his faith. Katkov supported the war, and Susanne Fusso, whose book follows his dealings with Turgenev, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, thinks he probably refused the part over its treatment of the volunteers. He did not print it. In its place the magazine told its readers that with the heroine’s death the novel had really come to an end. The author, it explained, had planned an epilogue of a few pages, in which Vronsky left for Serbia as a volunteer and Levin stayed hostile to the volunteers and the Slavophiles, and he might add those chapters in a special edition. Tolstoy issued the part as a pamphlet, and the whole novel appeared as a book in 1878.

An oil painting of Leo Tolstoy in a grey peasant blouse standing in his study at dusk, holding an open magazine in one hand and a string-tied manuscript in the other, while a train crosses the fields outside the window.
An imagined scene: Tolstoy in the spring of 1877, between the magazine that ended his novel and the part it would not print.

In Paris the editor and the court worked on the same novel at different moments. Before the Revue de Paris began serialising Madame Bovary in the autumn of 1856, Flaubert agreed, on the advice of Maxime Du Camp, one of its founders, to cut about thirty pages. During the run the Revue went further without him. It flagged sixty-nine passages it wanted cut or altered, retouched the text without his permission, and in the number of 1 December suppressed the scene in which Emma gives herself to Léon in a cab. Flaubert restored the passages it had retouched, and before the sixth and last instalment he printed a notice, the condition on which he let the serial finish. Considerations he was not called upon to judge, it said, had forced the Revue to make a cut; he disowned the lines that followed; and the reader was asked to see in them “only fragments, not a whole” (n’y voir que des fragments et non pas un ensemble). Eighteen years later Eça would ask Lisbon for the same declaration, and get a politer one in the editors’ words.

Then came the court. Within two months the Revue’s director, Léon Laurent-Pichat, its printer, Auguste-Alexis Pillet, and Flaubert were tried for outrage to public and religious morality and public decency. On 7 February 1857 all three were acquitted, though the court added that the book deserved “un blâme sévère.” The judgment reads like a map of who owned the serial. In the language of the law the editor was the auteur of the offence, and Flaubert, who had supplied the manuscript, was his accomplice. The state had put on trial the text its author had publicly called fragments, and had named someone else its author.

In New York the pencil reached Ulysses before the match. Forwarding Joyce’s chapters to the Little Review in 1918, Ezra Pound trimmed about twenty lines from “Calypso” himself, without Joyce’s knowledge; he had already advised Margaret Anderson that “it might be well to leave gaps, at the questionable points, well marked.” In 1919 and 1920 the Post Office seized and burned issues that carried the novel. A reader started the prosecution: a New York lawyer complained after an issue carrying part of “Nausicaa” reached his daughter. The last instalment ran in the September–December 1920 number, partway into “Oxen of the Sun.” In February 1921 Anderson and Jane Heap were found guilty, fined fifty dollars each and fingerprinted. The book stayed banned in the United States until 1933.

The author’s turn came after the serial was over. Eça’s borrão had run to about 160 pages. The book of 1876, which he called the “edição definitiva,” ran to 362. The version of 1880, rewritten again at length, ran to 674. The definitive edition lasted four years.

The reader was the weakest of the four, with two powers. The first was the purse: the readers of Pickwick had no say in whether Sam Weller appeared, but in July 1836 they bought the number he appeared in, and went on buying. The second was to hand the number to the censor, as the New York lawyer did in 1920.

Flaubert’s notice, then, was addressed to the one party who could not touch the text: the reader, who could only read what the others had left.

V

Not Yet a Book

In the volume of 1837, Buss’s plates were replaced by Phiz’s, to give the illustrations a uniform look. The book had quietly dropped one of the serial’s artists, and a book does not footnote what it drops.

War and Peace began in the same Russian Messenger, in instalments called 1805, between 1865 and 1867; Tolstoy then rewrote the entire novel for the book of 1869. The magazine that would decline to print the end of Anna Karenina had printed the beginning of War and Peace in a form its author did not keep.

A textual editor would say, fairly, that the book is the work and the serial one of its states. But the serial was the state with an audience: the only stage at which a novel could still change while it was being read.

Of the five serials at the top of the Guardian’s list, only Middlemarch reached its readers as its author had planned. Ulysses was cut, burned and stopped short; Anna Karenina lost its last part in the magazine; War and Peace was rewritten from its beginning; Madame Bovary was cut as it ran and then put on trial.

We call them books because the books are what survived. For a season each was something else: in progress, in public, in the hands of strangers. In February 1875 a novelist in Newcastle asked for one more set of proofs, and Lisbon printed the borrão. A book is where an author can say it is finished. A serial has no such place. It runs until the editor, the censor, the author or the market says enough, and the book we are handed is the draft at the point where it stops.

⁂

The opening rests on Aline Leal Mota’s dissertation, Anticlericalismo em mutação: as três versões de O Crime do Padre Amaro (Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, 2014), which quotes Eça’s letters to Batalha Reis of 8 and 26 February 1875 and the editors’ note as given by Tavares (1943); the page counts of the three versions are from Nau Literária, and the account of O Mistério da Estrada de Sintra from the Diário de Notícias (2020). The Guardian’s “The 100 best novels of all time” appeared on 12 May 2026; its top ten is given as reported by Gigazine and Telescoper. Smollett’s magazine and editorship are from Orlando and the Victorian Web; the caution about earlier serials is Wiles’s Serial Publication in England Before 1750. The Pickwick history follows the Victorian Web and Cornell’s Pickwick project, the print runs David Perdue’s Charles Dickens Page, and the missed June numbers of 1837 the scholarship cited in the Wikipedia article on Mary Hogarth. Henry James’s review of Middlemarch appeared in the Galaxy in March 1873 and is quoted from the University of Texas reprint. For Madame Bovary: the judgment of 7 February 1857, as reproduced by the Fondation Napoléon; Flaubert’s notice as quoted by Kartable; the sixty-nine passages from the National Coalition Against Censorship. For Ulysses: Pound’s letter to Margaret Anderson of January 1918, from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Libraries; the burnings from the Beinecke Library and the Community of Literary Magazines and Presses; the prosecution from NY 1920. Katkov’s refusal follows Susanne Fusso, “Mikhail Katkov and Lev Tolstoy: Anna Karenina against the Russian Herald” (Uppsala, 2019), shortened from her Editing Turgenev, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy (Northern Illinois University Press, 2017); the magazine’s note is paraphrased from James Warner’s account in openDemocracy (2011), and Levin’s chapters are quoted in Constance Garnett’s translation. The serial history of War and Peace is from the scholarship cited in the Wikipedia article. Translations from the Portuguese and French are ours. Concept review with Claude Fable 5.1; drafted with Claude Sonnet 5.5; revised with Claude Opus 5.5; literary editing by Claude Sonnet 5.5; outside literary editing by Claude Fable 5.1. The two paintings are imagined scenes generated with Gemini Argon, not historical likenesses: the header shows the young Charles Dickens writing at night while a printer’s boy waits at the door for copy, and the image in Section IV shows Tolstoy in the spring of 1877, holding the magazine that ended his novel and the part it would not print.

WHO’S FOOL NOW?

On a banished jester, a cartoonist’s pun, and who has held the fool’s license since kings stopped keeping fools

In 1638 the king’s fool mocked an archbishop and was banished the same day. Since then the fool’s license has passed from hand to hand: to a party and a censor, a cabinet minister’s lunch, a newspaper’s owner.

Early in 1638, with Scotland in uproar over a new prayer book that Archbishop William Laud had championed, the king’s jester greeted the archbishop with a question. “Who’s fool now? Does not your Grace hear the news from Stirling about the liturgy?”

Laud took the matter to the Privy Council. The same day, Archibald Armstrong, who had served James and then Charles, was sentenced “to have his coat pulled over his head and be discharged the king’s service and banished the king’s court.”

The sentence tells you what a jester’s freedom was. It wasn’t his. The king extended it, and it covered almost anything that amused the king. It didn’t cover an archbishop’s dignity in a season when the king’s church was being defied, and one complaint was enough to withdraw it in an afternoon. The coat pulled over his head was the fool’s motley taken back, as if the office had only ever been lent to him.

The king’s fool disappeared from the English court. The mocking didn’t stop. It moved into prints and plays, newspapers and cartoons, and at every stage someone else decided what the mockery would cost. That someone was sometimes a party, sometimes a censor, once a cabinet minister over lunch, and lately the owner of the page. The penalties have softened, and that isn’t a small thing. But the question Armstrong asked Laud has a second meaning he didn’t intend. Whoever mocks the powerful has to ask who allows it, and whether it has ever been the fool’s to keep.

I

The Charter

Shakespeare wrote down the terms of the fool’s license more exactly than any statute did. In As You Like It the melancholy Jaques, who longs for a motley coat of his own, asks for the one thing the coat conferred: “I must have liberty / Withal, as large a charter as the wind, / To blow on whom I please; for so fools have.” A charter is a grant. The wind blows where it likes. A fool blows where he has been allowed to. In Twelfth Night Olivia states the terms from the other side, defending her jester against a steward who wants him silenced: “There is no slander in an allowed fool, though he do nothing but rail.” And Lear’s Fool knows how narrow the grant can be. “They’ll have me whipped for speaking true, thou’lt have me whipped for lying, and sometimes I am whipped for holding my peace.”

The parts were written in the years Robert Armin was the company’s clown, and he is generally credited with playing all three. He had also published a book about real fools, some of whom he knew. They were written, too, in the years after England had been reminded who licensed mockery. On June 1, 1599, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London ordered “that noe Satyres or Epigramms be printed hereafter.” Within days the offending books were burned at Stationers’ Hall.

Armstrong lived inside those terms for decades. By 1623 he was well enough known to ride to Madrid with Prince Charles and the Duke of Buckingham, who had gone to win the prince a Spanish bride, and he was made much of at the Spanish court. The story is told, and it has the polish of a jest-book, that when Buckingham threatened to have him hanged, Armstrong answered that dukes had often been hanged for insolence, but never fools for talking. Whether or not he said it, it is the charter as a fool would have understood it.

The charter had a limit all the same, and an archbishop found it. The historian Andrea Shannon argues that Armstrong was never simply a clown who slipped once. Across two reigns he had a reputation for pointed comment on affairs of state, and the Spanish journey made him a public figure beyond the court. His fall, she writes, shows “the fluid boundaries of acceptable criticism” at a time when state affairs were increasingly discussed outside the court. What changed in 1638 wasn’t the fool. It was his subject. A joke at an archbishop’s expense was the king’s amusement. A joke about the king’s church in open defiance was a comment on the king’s policy, made at the one moment the court couldn’t afford to laugh.

It would be easy to make Armstrong the first chapter of a story of progress, and the story wouldn’t be wholly false. Armstrong had one patron, who gave him both the license and the living. When the license went, so did the coat, the post and the court. No one who comes after him here depended on a single man for all of that. A licensor you can walk away from is a different thing from one you can’t, and later fools would learn to walk.

II

The Pension and the Censor

Parties took up the habit kings had dropped. In 1797 George Canning, a rising man in Pitt’s government, founded The Anti-Jacobin to ridicule the government’s opponents, and the caricaturist James Gillray took a pension of £200 a year. Canning paid for plates on the paper’s themes, and some count twenty that came of the arrangement. The university library that now holds Gillray’s prints describes what the money bought as “a temporary loyalty.”

Feste would have understood the arrangement. All through Twelfth Night he turns his wit into coins. When Viola pays him for a jest, he looks at the money and asks, “Would not a pair of these have bred, sir?” A pensioned fool isn’t silenced. He is aimed. Whether Gillray ever turned his needle on Pitt or Canning while the money came is a question the surviving accounts of the arrangement don’t answer. What they do show is the new shape of the license. It was no longer a coat that could be pulled over a man’s head. It was an income that could stop.

The other license belonged to the state, and it reached a fool three centuries dead. On November 22, 1832, Paris saw the first performance of Victor Hugo’s Le roi s’amuse, a play about Triboulet, the real jester of Francis I, who serves a libertine king. The next day the government banned it for its supposed insults to the reigning king, Louis-Philippe. Hugo went to court to have it restored. In the preface to the printed play he called the ban not merely “a monstrous act of censorship and arbitrary power” but “a true confiscation.” He lost, and paid the costs. The play wasn’t performed again for fifty years.

Nineteen years later Verdi set the same story. The Austrian censors in Venice passed his opera only when the king had become a Duke of Mantua and Triboulet had become Rigoletto. The fool’s story could be told, so long as there was no king in it for him to serve.

By the middle of the nineteenth century the license had split in two. The paymaster decided what the fool would be paid to mock. The censor decided what could be shown being mocked, even in a fiction set three centuries back. Neither license belonged to the fool, and both could be withdrawn by people he never met. Hugo, though, did something Armstrong never could. He took the censor to court in public, and called what had been taken from him by its right name: his property. He lost, and went on writing.

III

The Muzzle

In November 1937 Lord Halifax went to Germany. He wasn’t yet Foreign Secretary. He was Lord President of the Council, travelling on an invitation to Göring’s International Hunting Exhibition in Berlin. On November 19 he lunched with Hitler at Berchtesgaden. Before leaving Berlin he met Göring and Goebbels. According to Timothy Benson, the historian who wrote Low and the Dictators, Goebbels singled out one cartoonist for complaint: David Low of Lord Beaverbrook’s Evening Standard, a New Zealander whose cartoons of Hitler were banned in Germany.

Halifax came home, in the historian Tim Bouverie’s words, “determined to curb him.” He went first to the paper. “You cannot imagine the frenzy that these cartoons cause,” he told Michael Wardell of the Standard, as Benson gives it. Wardell’s answer was that it wasn’t his to give. He couldn’t control Low, he said, because Low’s contract put the cartoonist beyond the paper’s reach. The license had moved. It wasn’t the king’s, or the paymaster’s, or even the proprietor’s. Low held it by contract, and a cabinet minister who wanted it narrowed had to ask the man himself.

So Halifax asked. The two met for lunch at Wardell’s flat in Bayswater, where Halifax asked Low to tone down his cartoons for the sake of the government’s search for peace. Low later recalled what he was told. Hitler had the cartoons brought to him and laid on his desk, and “finished always with an explosion.” Low answered that he didn’t want to be responsible for a war, but that he had a duty to say what he saw. Then, in the words Benson gives him, he agreed: “I’ll slow down a bit.”

In a rain-dark London dining room, a tall man in a dark suit gestures across a lunch table toward a man reading a page of cartoons; a leather muzzle lies on the white cloth between them
A lunch in Bayswater, made for this essay.

On January 1, 1938, the Evening Standard introduced a new character. He was a composite dictator with Hitler’s features and Mussolini’s, identified as neither, and his name was Muzzler. The name told anyone paying attention what had happened. Feste called himself not a fool but a “corrupter of words,” and Low had found the fool’s last resort. When he couldn’t say a thing plainly, he bent a word until it said it for him.

It lasted until March. When Hitler annexed Austria, Low decided that his restraint was buying nothing, and Hitler came back into the cartoons under his own name.

What makes the episode worth telling isn’t that Low was pressed. Fools have always been pressed. It’s where the pressing happened and who did it. The objection began with a dictatorship and was carried by a British minister to a newspaper, which declined to carry it further. It was settled over a private lunch, with no order, no court and no record, until the men involved wrote their memoirs. Hugo lost in public and kept his objection on the record in a preface. Low kept, by contract, the right to be asked. What he gave in return was ten weeks of a word that meant muzzle.

IV

The Owner

Ann Telnaes had drawn editorial cartoons for The Washington Post since 2008. She submitted a sketch of a group of technology and media owners paying court to the president-elect. In her own list, they were Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Sam Altman of OpenAI, Patrick Soon-Shiong of the Los Angeles Times, the Walt Disney Company, drawn as a prostrate Mickey Mouse, and the owner of her own paper, Jeff Bezos, all bringing Donald Trump their offerings.

The paper’s opinion editor, David Shipley, declined to run it. The Post had just published a column on the same subject and had a satire already scheduled, he said, and “the only bias was against repetition.”

Telnaes resigned on January 3, 2025, and explained why the next day, on her own Substack. Her sketches had been rejected before, she wrote, “but never because of the point of view inherent in the cartoon’s commentary.” Then: “That’s a game changer…and dangerous for a free press.” She kept drawing, for the readers who followed her to her Substack, Open Windows.

In May the Pulitzer Board gave her its prize for Illustrated Reporting and Commentary. The award is listed under “Ann Telnaes of The Washington Post.” The citation praised “piercing commentary on powerful people and institutions” and “a fearlessness that led to her departure from the news organization after 17 years.”

V

Coda

At the end of Twelfth Night the lovers have paired off, and Malvolio has gone with a promise: “I’ll be revenged on the whole pack of you.” The house empties, and Feste is left alone with a song about the wind and the rain. In its last lines he turns from the world’s weather to the company’s business:

A great while ago the world begun,
With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,
But that’s all one, our play is done,
And we’ll strive to please you every day.

The household fool has become a player, and his licensor is whoever paid to get in.

Telnaes ended up in the same place. In this story, hers is the first case where losing the house didn’t mean losing the audience. Armstrong lost his coat and his place at court. Gillray’s loyalty was bought for a time. Hugo’s play went dark for fifty years. Low bought his freedom back with ten weeks of a pun. Telnaes lost the Post and kept her readers, and the prize followed her out the door. The cost of losing the license has fallen that far, and it isn’t a small thing.

A public can’t pull a coat over anyone’s head. It can stop paying. And it has tastes, habits and loyalties of its own, as every court did, and a fool who strives to please it every day is still pleasing someone. Whether the paying public is the fool’s first free licensor, or only the largest court he has served, is not a question the fool can answer from the stage.

Who’s fool now?

⁂

Shakespeare is quoted from the following online texts: As You Like It 2.7 from the Shakespeare Navigators edition (Eastern Washington University); Twelfth Night 1.5, 3.1 and Malvolio’s exit in 5.1, and King Lear 1.4, from Owl Eyes; the last stanza of Feste’s song in Twelfth Night 5.1 as printed in the Folger Shakespeare. Armstrong’s jest and sentence are quoted as the Dictionary of National Biography gives the Privy Council’s wording, reached through Wikipedia; the Madrid story is told as the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica repeats it, and is presented as a story. Andrea Shannon’s phrase comes from the published abstract of her article “‘Uncouth language to a Princes ears’: Archibald Armstrong, Court Jester, and Early Stuart Politics,” Sixteenth Century Journal 42.1 (2011); the article itself is behind a paywall and was not consulted. The Bishops’ Ban of 1599 is quoted as Wikipedia reproduces it. Gillray’s pension and “a temporary loyalty” are from Newcastle University Special Collections. Victor Hugo’s preface to Le roi s’amuse (dated 30 November 1832) is quoted in this essay’s own translation, checked against three editions of the French. The account of Halifax, Wardell and Low follows Timothy S. Benson’s published account, which draws on Low’s Autobiography (1956) but gives no references; the autobiography itself was not consulted, and the quotations attributed to Halifax and Low are given as Benson gives them. Tim Bouverie’s Appeasement (2019) is quoted from passages reproduced as reader highlights, not from the book. Halifax’s office and the date of his meeting with Hitler are from Hansard, 24 November 1937; the hunting exhibition and the meetings with Göring and Goebbels from Time, 29 November 1937. Ann Telnaes is quoted from her Substack posts of 4 January and 28 December 2025; David Shipley’s statement from NPR, 4 January 2025; the Pulitzer citation from pulitzer.org. The header and interior images were generated with Gemini for this essay and are not historical illustrations; the interior imagines the Bayswater lunch and depicts no one’s likeness. The essay’s starting point was Jill C. Shomer’s “Displaying the Gems of Jester,” Columbia College Today, Fall 2026. Drafted with Claude Opus 5.5; literary editing by Claude Opus 5; copy editing by Gemini.