“Gertrude’s Prayer?.

The story

This is a dark story of hatred, and long matured plans for revenge which in the end are abandoned. Two men, Manallace and Castorley, have loved the same woman. When Castorley, a thoroughly unpleasant, self-seeking, and spiteful character, shows callous disregard for her as she lies suffering from a fatal illness, Manallace devotes the rest of his life to avenging her.

Both men are writers. Manallace makes a living from popular historical novels, of no great literary merit. Castorley becomes a critic, savaging Manallace's work, and goes on to make himself a scholar and a world expert on Chaucer, avid for fame and status.

Manallace painstakingly forges a fragment of a 'lost' Chaucer manuscript, and ensures that is comes to the attention of Castorley, who identifies it as genuine. His standing is enhanced and he is knighted. Manallace plans to reveal the forgery at a moment of his own choosing, or threaten to do so. This would destroy Castorley's reputation, and possibly kill him.

But Castorley falls ill, and is attended by a surgeon who is his wife's lover. Lady Castorley, an unattractive and sinister woman, has detected Manallace's scheme. and is keen for him to press ahead with it and destroy her husband. With vengeance within his grasp, Manallace holds back; he does not wish to be the tool of an evil woman, and has lost his thirst for retribution. Castorley senses that something is wrong somewhere, but dies without ever knowing the truth.

Critical comments

J M S Tompkinssees this story as a masterpiece, with the substance of a novel in the words of a short story. In her chapter “Hatred and Revenge? she writes (page 147):

The tale is very tightly written. There are no flourishes in it; every sentence tells and matters. The writing is of that `infolded' sort which, at first reading, may seem to present a crumpled mass, but which gradually fills and spreads and tightens with the fullness and tension of its meanings, until it is a House of Life itself, a tent covering the erring and suffering spirit of man. The title offers us two handles. It is a phrase from the Chaucerian fragment that Manallace forges, as an instrument of his revenge on Castorley, the Chaucer specialist; it is also the condition of Manallace which has nourished that revenge. He is the oak-spray of 'Gertrude's Prayer', bruised and knotted and twisted on itself in youth through his unhappy love, which brings him nothing but the opportunity of nursing and supporting a deserted and paralysed woman, whose eyes look always for the husband who has left her. Thus his 'dawning goth amiss', and when she dies, after many years, his life is emptied, until it is filled by his secret hate for Castorley.
Charles Carrington(page 475) calls this:

...an astonishing performance, a profound, obscure, and singularly unpleasant story about a vindictive feud between two expert bibliophiles, or rather the vindictive persecution of a sham expert by a genuine expert … But more engaging than the revenge-motif is the virtuosity with which a spurious poem by Chaucer is composed, a fifteenth-century manuscript is faked and the specious scholar is deceived. As if this involution were not enough, the progress of th plot is contrasted with the degeneration of the victim as disease wears him down, until the combined assault of pain and disillusion reveal his breaking strain.
Carrington adds, in a footnote:

It was just like R.K. to go through the whole process of faking a mediaeval manuscript with his own hands before writing the story.
Martin Seymour-Smith(pp. 359-363) pays tribute to Dr Tompkins's analysis of the story, and also writes of it at length:

'Dayspring Mishandled', the title of the story, has many meanings here, but one is certainly Manallace's inertia and failure to handle the dawn of inspiration in him. For his life is doomed, ironically, to turn into one long work of art, and that work malicious and evil. You don't, Kipling is telling us, escape the daimon so easily.
Philip Mallett(page 5) groups this story with others containing a solitary driven character: Larry Tighe in “Love o’ Women “ (Many Inventions), Vickery in “Mrs Bathurst? (Traffics and Discoveries), and Grace Ashcroft in “The Wish House?(Debits and Credits).

He goes on (p. 193) to describe the subject as:

Forgiveness, or at least the fading away of the desire for revenge … one of the most complex of Kipling’s stories …. (he) weaves three further texts into this already complicated story. There is an epigraph , taken from a poem by Charles Nodier …. There is a frame story which involves a narrator who appears initially as a disinterested observer of events. And following the story proper there is a poem, ‘described as ‘Modernised from the “Chaucer? of Manallance’ called ‘Gertrude’s Prayer,’ which asserts the futility of all hopes of renewal: ‘Dayspring mishandled cometh not againe’. The three texts work subtly to shape our reading.
Angus Wilson(page 337) examines "Dayspring Mishandled" at some length, suggesting:

... this fine story is weakened by our not knowing what enormity Castorley said, for we are not allowed to be judge of Manallace’s justification, which is a centre to the story. Yet if, as I suspect, Castorley declared that her paralysis was syphilis contracted by whoring it is hard to see how a man like Kipling could have written it out, even in 1928.
[Yet syphilis is the theme of “Love o’ Women" (Many Inventions, 1893) and figures in “The Army of a Dream? (Traffics and Discoveries, page 262 line 28). See also Andrew Lycett, page 127: Ed.]

Harry Ricketts(pp. 379/81) in a fascinating survey and summary of the story also sees it as a condensed novel, reporting that Kipling wrote it in a fortnight, and told his daughter Elsie: 'It is not at all a nice tale… (but has) a pretty title.'Ricketts also notes:

He almost certainly borrowed the forgery idea from his friend Ian Colvin, who had once nearly pulled off a similar hoax on The Times with some 'early' Keats sonnets. However, the story's narrative obliquity and its moral and other dilemmas, owed a different debt, which was to Henry James's treatment of literary themes ... there was something eminently Jamesian about Kipling's reluctance to let the reader know what dreadful thing Castorley said to Manallace. In his last great story he had fully imbibed the lesson of the master. 'So long as the events are veiled, the imagination will run riot, and depict all sorts of horrors, but as soon as the veil is lifted, all mystery disappears, and with it the sense of terror'. [Leon Edel, Henry James, A Life, Harper & Row New York 1977, p. 467.]
The reviewer in The Timesof 7 April 1932 also comments on:

... the desire for revenge; it is a triumph of ingenuity, but in nothing so ingenious as that Mr. Kipling stops short of the climax that would distract from the process. The avenger took endless pains to foist a forgery of his own manufacture on a Chaucer expert; and from what Mr. Kipling submits of the forgery and from what he tells us of the means by which it was authenticated one imagines that George Psalmanazar would have saluted him as brother.

[George Psalmanazar (c. 1679-1763) forged a passport while pretending to be an Irish pilgrim, and also claimed to be the first Formosan to visit Europe, but was later shown to be an impostor; Ed.]

See also “Poor Old Castorley? by E. N. Houlton in KJ 238/61for another analysis.


[J H McG]

©John McGivering 2008 All rights reserved


top of the page
version for printing
notes on the text


notes on the text
"Dayspring
Mishandled"



(notes edited
by John McGivering)


[July 12 2008]

Publication

First published in McCall’s Magazine for March 1928 and the Strand Magazine for July the same year; collected in Limits and Renewals in 1932, and later in the Burwash and Sussex editions. The illustrations, four in number, were by C. E. Brock, R.I. It is accompanied by the verse