- Letteratura
Nicoletta Vallorani
-
- THE
BROTHERHOOD OF TWINS. CONRAD'S THE SECRET SHARER AND
PHOTOGRAPHY
-
-
-
- I rang the
bell before a mahogany door on the
first floor, and while I waited he
seemed to stare at me out of the
glassy panel - stare with that wide
and immense stare embracing,
condemning, loathing all the
universe.
- Joseph
Conrad, Heart of Darkness
(1988, 72)
-
- Man has no
internal sovereign territory; he is
all and always on the boundary;
looking within himself he looks in
the eyes of the other and through
the other; I cannot become myself
without the other.
- Michael
Bakhtin, "Towards a Reworking of the
Dostoevsky Book" (1961,
287)
-
- Whether one calls it Kurtz or
Haldin, whether one sees it reflected in a mirror or
in the glassy panel of a mahogany door, the Conradian
Other is there any time one of his characters
tries to find his own identity, or better - in
Bakhtin's words - to become himself. By all rights,
this silent brother - the twin whose voice has long
been silenced - can be interpreted as a more or less
accidental offspring of Conrad's obsession with the
double, seen through the magnifying glass of
literature:
-
- Both at sea
and on land, my point of view is English, from
which the conclusion should not be drawn that I
have become an Englishman. That is not the case.
Homo duplex has in my case more than one
meaning1.
-
- Some further articulations of
this openly stated duplicity - better defined, though,
as multiplicity - are given in a host of his
stories, and they go on feeding critical theories on
the modes and modalities of Conrad's mirror effect
(Ambrosini: 1991, 88) and the ontological ambiguity of
the voices speaking in his narratives (London:1990,
1-27 and Kreilkamp: 1997, 370-373).
- Under a wider perspective,
the mood revealing in Conrad's attitude to "feel
double" - and to transmit osmotically this feeling to
his characters - is epistemologically grounded in a
much debated development in the techniques of vision
at the turn of the century. Film and photography are
obviously implied in the process, and with good
reason. They are largely responsible - though at
different levels and with less contiguities that one
can think2
- in what Anne-Marie Willis posits as "the late
twentieth-century condition of hypervisuality, which
has seen the rise of the figural over discourse"
(Willis: 1995, 77). Though oversimplifying a little,
Willis is right when identifying the first and most
worrisome outcome of the process in the changing
status of representation: "The real has collapsed into
credibility of appearance, authenticity has become a
matter of convincing details (...) Film, photography,
video and the 'real' intertwine." (Willis:1995, 77).
More in particular, the experience of photography, in
popular culture, has been fundamentally moulded by the
sense that it is a realist medium. Its basic operation
has always been understood as consisting in the
precise, mechanical and impersonal rendering of the
appearance of objects3.
The process, as we will see, is reversed when
referring to photography as an art, but for the time
being - and for the purposes of our study - it may be
relevant to point out the close kinship soon stated
between the original - be it a person, an animal, an
object or a landscape - and its photographic
reproduction. We do believe that Conrad's Other
is unavoidably - though not necessarily consciously -
linked to this feeling of closeness, this technically
- obtained kinship which confirm and at the same time
denies the profile of the original in its
copy.
-
- At a deeper level, the
photographic analogy may be further articulated, and
goes back to Conrad's perception of himself as a split
personality: a homo duplex, a modernist at war
with modernity, endlessly - and hopelessly - in search
of an ethical absolute which has been
lost4.
Erdinast-Vulcan, developing this point with reference
to Conrad's protagonists, acutely maintains
that
-
- In the
absence of the metaphysical vertical analogy,
they set up a horizontal, lateral analogy of
brotherhood. In terms of the mastertropes of
consciousness we have posited for Conrad's modes
of response to modernity, the movement here is
from synechdoche to metonymy, from the
perception of sameness through containment to a
perception of sameness through contiguity
(Erdinast-Vulcan: 1991, 90).
-
- Though applying this
consideration to Conrad's canon at large,
Erdinast-Vulcan's analysis refers more closely to two
works in particular, "The Secret Sharer"
(1910)5
and Under Western Eyes (1911). Sticking to our
starting metaphor of brotherhood, we may say that they
belong to a set of twins. They sport the same
structure, the protagonists' psychological journeys
develop along the same pattern and they were
elaborated in the same period, since SS was written in
the intermissions of Under Western Eyes. In
both cases, the Other is not only a palpable
presence, but it gives a concrete - or better,
perceptual - shape to something normally considered as
bad, negative, to be repected in the light of commonly
shared ethics. As it first happened to Cain, this
Other has committed an unforgivable sin which
is to be expiated through exile for him and his
progeny. However, the basic difference between Cain on
the one hand and SS's narrator on the other (together
with Marlow, Razumov, the narrator of The Shadow
Line) is to be looked for in their relation with
their "killed brothers". Their revision of the
predicament of Cain ("The 'brand of Cain' business",
as Leggatt himself defines it - SS, 203) is given in
terms of their readiness to assume full responsibility
for the Other, their sincere and fully
conscious perception of themselves as "their brothers'
keepers" (Erdinast-Vulcan: 1991, 91).
- This is all the more true in
SS. Leggatt is soon perceived by the Captain as his
twin brother. Their resemblance - it comes out right
from the beginning - is a matter going deep into their
psyches, though apparently given as a surface
contiguity: a metonymic solidarity, to use
Erdinast-Vulcan's definition.
-
- He had
concealed his damp body in a sleeping suit of
the same grey-stripe pattern as the one I was
wearing and followed me like my double on the
poop. Together we moved right aft, barefoot,
silent (SS: 197).
-
- And:
-
- He was not a
bit like me, really; yet, as we stood leaning
over my bed-place, whispering side by side, with
our dark heads together and out back to the
door, anybody bold enough to open it stealthily
would have been treated to the uncanny sight of
a double Captain busy taking in whispers with
his other self (SS: 201).
-
- The immediate factuality of
the image and its irrefutable credibility from the
point of view of the observers bear witness to the
dominating mood of the age: seeing tends to be
perceived as a condition for reality, and what is
seen is real. Nevertheless the
ontological status of the seen image is soon given as
ambiguous, since the physical resemblance between
Leggatt and the Captain is less an actual similarity
of traits than a matter of attitudes, clothes, and
psychological reactions to their surrounding world. As
it happens with photographic portraits (or twin
brothers), there is an essential difference between
two versions of the same self, something pertaining
substance and not so easily caught, a shade
epitomizing a difference and entailing a (conscious or
unconscious) lie.
- Again, one of Conrad's
mastertropes can be suitably applied also to
photography: there as in Conrad's fiction the basic
operation is to be stated - oversimplifying a little -
as the staging of an unreliable identity. The attitude
of photography to produce a fake double must have been
already clear at mid-nineteenth century if as early as
in 1840 a French photographer, Hippolite Bayard,
exploited its potential for am ironic reversae ot
reality producing and then publishing his
"Self-Portrait as a Drowned Man" (fig. 1). Quite a
good photographer whose work was overshadowed by the
popular success of Talbot's and Daguerre's
daguerreotypes, he commented on his misfortunes
pretending a suicide and taking a photograph of
himself as a dead man. The image was described as
follows:
-
- The body you
see is that of Monsieur Bayard...The Academy,
the king, and all who have seen his pictures
admired them, just as you do. Admiration brought
him prestige, but not a sou. The Government,
which gave M.Daguerre so much, said it could do
nothing for M.Bayard at all, and the wretch
drowned himself 6.
-
- Bayard's provocative stance
is supported by a definite use of the photographic
technique, it develops around this technique's ability
to create a fictional double and aims at putting the
blame on the Government (though ironically) for the
photographer's tragic death. Of course, no actual
assumption of responsibility is implied here, but it
may be of some relevance to point out that the
matter of responsibility is mentioned. The
creation of a fictional double results - though not
always - in the enactment of an ontological double: at
the imaginative level, the photographic self acquires
a personal history, a biography, a private and public
life, all of them suggested by the photography itself
and underlaying it7.
-
- This brings as back to the
"'brand of Cain' business" and his relevance in SS.
Faced with his twin brother, appearing in water as a
photographic image, the Captain can either denounce
him - and sentence him to a fate of imprisonment and
death - or hide him from anybody else. He decides for
this latter possibility. Given that the narrator and
Leggatt are so similar as to look twins - or one the
photographic replica of the other - the
narrator's assumption of responsibility for the
Other - in such a condition - tends to become
self-responsibility. Under a very concrete
perspective, the Other has become what Bakhtin
defines the "usurping double" (Bakhtin: 1984,
288)8
and will at length oblige the Captain to take a
definite stance against the ethics he had chosen to
conform to when becoming a sailor. An ethics - we must
say - he appears from the beginning to be in conflict
with.
-
-
- 1. Self,
substance, the original and the
copy
-
- But what I
felt most was my being a stranger to the ship;
and if all the truth must be told, I was
somewhat of a stranger to myself (SS:
193).
-
- Right from the beginning,
even before Leggatt appears, the Captain feels ill at
ease with his crew - synechdochically alluding to all
the men linked by the Conradian "bond of the sea" -
and even with himself. The area around him is crowded
with ghostly doubles - strangers among the crew, plus
his own stranger self - among which he is unable to
find his own bearings, to spot his true identity and
feel familiar with it. The Captain's schizophrenic
process of doubling, besides defining his quest as a
journey towards the acceptance of
doubleness9,
anticipates Leggatt's appearance and his taking the
role of the Captain's double. The mutual understanding
between the two of them somehow echoes the kind of
interaction between photographer and sitter given as a
basic requirement to make photography into an
art.
- As early as in 1856, Nadar,
while trying to promote the new photographic
technique, described it as "a marvellous discovery, a
science that has attracted the greatest intellects, an
art that excites the most astute minds - and one that
can be practised by any imbecile". Science and art as
adequate definitions of this "marvellous discovery"
clash'- in their syntagmatic contiguity - with the
idea that no particular ability is needed to practice
photography. Technically speaking, this is true, since
"Photographic theory can be taught in an hour, the
basic techniques in a day. But" and this is the key
statement in Nadar's position, "what cannot be taught
is the feeling for light. It is how light dies on the
face that you as artist must capture. Nor can one be
taught how to grasp the personality of the sitter."
Therefore, photography as a doubling technique is not
to be limited to the mere visible surface of persons
and things, but it must reach the deeper realm of
personality. "To produce an intimate likeness rather
than a banal portrait, the result of mere chance, you
must put yourself at once in communion with the
sitter, size up his thoughts and his very
character"10.
The entire process, therefore, implies something of a
mystic: right from the beginning, taking a photograph
is less a matter of creating a double than a technique
to capture the profile of a soul11.
- The profile of his own soul
is exactly what the Captain is looking for when
meeting Leggatt. And he finds it - at least its dark
"Cain" side. Evidence enough for this is provided by
the narrator often identifying Leggatt as its own
self, using this specific lexical voice or some other
terms belonging to the same semantic
field:
-
- My
double
- My other
self
- My secret
sharer
- Myself
- My secret
self
- The secret
sharer of my life
- My second
self
- The
unsuspected sharer of my cabin
- My
intelligent double
- Our secret
partnership
- That stranger
in my cabin
-
- Meaningfully enough, these
definitions are given with no qualifying quotation
marks in the text and all of them imply a double
semantic reference: an ontological similarity or at
least a basic solidarity ("self", "double", "sharer",
"partnership") coupled with mystery, a secret which is
to be kept and which is the clearest evidence of
otherness ("other", "secret", "second", "unsuspected",
"stranger"). The resulting sense of the uncanny is
certainly an integral part of SS's fascination as a
story. As Erdinast-Vulcan maintains, it is
epistemological rather than ontological: "Leggatt, the
man, is real enough. It is the perception of Leggatt
as the Captain's double which corrodes the substance
of the tale" (Erdinast-Vulcan: 1999, 40). In other
words, doubleness is staged rather than substantial.
It does not spring from an actual condition of
duplicity, but from the acting of it.
- The Captain himself seems
aware of this condition of artfully performed
similarity. Faced with the image of Leggatt wearing
his sleeping suit and occupying his bed, he
comments:
-
- And then, with
his face nearly hidden, he must have looked exactly
as I used to look in that bed (SS:
206).
-
- Though not deceived himself,
he can anticipate some other observer's possible
deception. He even pretends this deception when, after
helping Leggatt to climb onto the bed - which is
"rather high" (SS: 206) - he seems to take some steps
back to observe the whole scene. Or, to use a
photographic metaphor, to check his sitter and
background before taking his photograph.
- Accurate staging when
preparing to take photographic portraits is customary
since 1860, and it becomes more and more elaborated
when actors and actresses start demanding for
publicity photographs in costumes - sort of acting
doubles - on the background of a stage setting closely
rebuilt in the photographer's studio.
-
-
- In the meanwhile, photography
becomes a popular medium, a technique which can be
easily approached not only by a restricted
élite but also by a wider and wider number of
practitioners. The popularisation of the art has also
produced something of a "philosophy of photographic
reproduction", a process by now increasingly far from
mimetic representation. By the early twenties, what
photographers are usually asked for are no longer
mirror images of their sitters, but the staging of a
fantasy (Williams: 1986, 13-14). This graduary
changing halo around photography produces its modified
ontological status: at the beginning of the new
century, it is felt as a document which is apparently
mimetic but not to be trusted12.
The new self the photographer lends to his sitters is
unsubstantial. Its reality factor depends on the gaze
of the observer and on his ability to provide the
photographic portrait with a personal history, a
background, a private life and all that is needed to
make it all the more similar to a real
person.
- This consideration brings us
back to a basic trait of Leggatt. If compared to other
"doubles" in Conrad's narrative (Kurtz in Heart of
Darkness, Haldin in Under Western Eyes,
James Wait in The Nigger of the Narcissus and
the old dead Captain in The Shadow Line), this
is the only one whose presence goes almost totally
unnoticed. Nobody but the Captain is aware of his
presence on board, nobody witnesses his slow recovery
from the long swimming journey from his ship, even his
tale seems surrounded by a halo of uncertainty and
unreality. Nevertheless he is openly presented as
reliable: an I(eye)-narrator whose words are supported
by factual details and concrete references. The
Sephora actually exists and is sailing nearby.
There is really someone looking for Leggatt and his
story about his crime is finally confirmed by his
chasers.
- This basic dichotomy between
what is real and what is perceived as real
replicates the ambiguity surrounding the birth and
development of photography. From mid-nineteenth
century onwards, photography was felt as sporting two
somehow opposing features, which can be identified as
a mimetic vs a magic function, fact vs
fiction.
- Photography goes on being
considered for quite a long time as a technique
capable of conjuring up fidelity of mimesis and
therefore to bear witness to people and events which
must have existed in "reality". On the ground of this
perception, in his Preface to The Pencil of
Nature, Henry Fox Talbot, writes that "...the
plates of this work have been obtained by the mere
action of light upon sensitive paper (...) They are
impressed by Nature's hand; and what they want as yet
of delicacy and finish of execution arises chiefly
from our want of sufficient knowledge of her laws"
(Fox Talbot: 1844, XII). Later on, photojournalism -
soon positing photography as an object of mass
consumption - will develop exactly on this basis, as a
way to provide concrete evidence of a fact to whoever
has not had the possibility to witness this fact
through his/her own eyes. The addressee - the public -
acquires a new centrality, since photography of this
kind - more than any other - exists to be seen. It is
from the beginning a substitute evidence for reality.
Conversely, the photographer's failure consists in not
being able to bring images on plate/paper and
therefore not being able to make us see.
- In SS, Leggatt is meant to
make us see. The narrator's double is, just like a
photographic portrait, charged with the duty to
replicate the Captain's physical appearance which is
never given as such. He seems to provide the reader
with a mimetic replica of a peculiarly shy sitter,
nevertheless perfectly aware of what is
happening:
-
- The shadowy,
dark head, like mine, seemed to nod
imperceptibly above the ghastly grey of my
sleeping suit. It was, in the night, as though I
had been faced by my own reflection in the
depths of a sombre and immense mirror (SS:
198).
-
- At the same time, the
narrator's double is never seen. He is therefore a
photography which has not come out, a failed attempt
at reproducing a very elusive sitter.
- The elusive quality of the
sitter - and of the portrait - leads us to the
conflicting perception of photography as a kind of
magic. Henry Fox Talbot, in his 1839 lecture to the
Royal Society, describes photography as something
which "appears to me to partake of the character of
the marvellous (...) The most transitory things, a
shadow, may be fettered (...) by the spells of our
natural magic"13.
This must have been a shared feeling if David Octavius
Hill's sitters declared that when photographed they
felt involved in a magic experience14.
- The same atmosphere pervades
SS. Right from the beginning, the narrator's reaction
to what happens is wonder, mostly triggered by how
much Leggatt looks like him and then reinforced by
several peculiar details, namely his astonishing
swimming ability, his capacity to disappear when
required, the discrepancy between his apparent good
disposition and the sudden violent burst producing his
crime and so on. The gradual discovery of these
features - besides resulting, for the Captain, in a
sort of self-unveiling - seems to replicate the
"mystic" contact photographer/sitter taking place when
an effective portrait is obtained. In 1890, Julia
Margaret Cameron gives a very effective description of
the process in his Annals of My
Glass-House:
-
- When I have
had such men before my camera my whole soul has
endeavoured to do its duty towards them in
recording faithfully the greatness of the inner
as well as the features of the outer man. The
photograph thus taken has been almost the
embodiment of a prayer (Cameron: 1890,
158).
-
- Both the magic and the
mystics are supported by a technique which resembles a
ritual. In particular, water symbolism has a very
strong part in producing a deep fascination in both
the public and the practitioners of photography. When
the calotype is introduced - by Henry Fox Talbot in
1841 - and the image support becomes paper, the magic
is finally and explicitly coupled with a "water
ritual". The image does not appear during the exposure
in the camera obscura, but the silver salts are
darkened later on, through a "development" in gallic
acid, which speeds up the reaction15.
The whole process is not only the living evidence of
how much techniques have evolved, but most of all an
event springing from a very relevant - though
oversimplified - popular assumption: photography is
the art of giving shape to the
invisible16.
-
-
- 2.
Substantial technicalities
-
- Photography became a mass
phenomenon with amazing rapidity. Henry Fox Talbot's
work with the calotype was followed by a great
explosion of activity. Soon enough it made the medium
accessible and attractive to professionals and
practitioners and transformed it in to a wholly new
and profitable commercial business. Both as a form of
art and as a documentary device, photography seemed to
reveal astonishing possibilities and induced a wave of
technical self-congratulation propagating all over
Europe, to which a series of world expositions
certainly contributed. "From the first, the Great
Exhibition of 1851 in London - writes Alan Thomas -
these expositions encouraged photography by
establishing display salons, and, with wider effect,
by advancing the universalist idea to Western peoples
of a new global perspective: the world under one roof"
(Thomas:1978, 11).
- All through this process, the
photographic portrait goes on being the most courted
and refined technique. It develops with equal
effectiveness to artistic purposes and documentary
needs, both in terms of official history (e.g.
portraits of famous personalities) and as a Tribute to
private memory (e.g. portraits of dead relatives). It
is exactly this wide popularity which must have
induced Lichtwark, in years not far from the
publishing of SS, to declare that at the beginning of
the new century there was no work of art so closely
observed as one's own photographic portrait, or the
portrait of one's relatives or friends or beloved
woman17.
Meaningfully enough, Lichtwark was a German
photographer who was trying to launch artistic
photography in Germany and to revive the art of
portraiture in a period when the only good portraiture
was being done by amateur photographers who had
economic freedom and time to experiment. Therefore he
must have been well aware of what he was speaking
of.
- Conrad's direct comments on
photography and the art of portrait equals zero while
SS was being written. Nevertheless, he must have had
quite a clear feeling of their impact, since SS's
narrative seems saturated with the language and
techniques of the new visual mediums18.
And when closing up on the appearance of Leggatt, it
openly quotes the process of photographic
development:
-
- The side of
the ship made an opaque belt on the darkling
glassy shimmer of the sea. But I saw at once
something elongated and pale floating very close
to the ladder. Before I could form a guess, a
faint flash of phosphorescent light, which
seemed to issue suddenly from the naked body of
a man, flickered in the sleeping water with the
elusive, silent play of summer lightning in a
summer sky. With a gasp I saw revealed to my
stare a pair of feet, the long legs, a broad,
livid back immersed right up to the neck in a
greenish cadaverous glow. One hand, awash,
clutched the bottom rung of the ladder. He was
complete but for the head. A headless corpse!
(SS: 196).
-
- The multiple recurrences of
verbs and lexical voices going back to the semantic
area of seeing ("saw", "revealed", "flickered",
"stare") quote the power of vision to define the
world, ironically reversing it. The image offered to
the reader is in fact "not visible", in the double
meaning of not accessible to sight (physically) and
not understandable through mind (cognitively). First
of all, there is not enough light (e.g. "opaque",
"darkling", "pale", "elusive"), and moreover that much
left has a peculiar quality of transience and
weirdness: the "darkling glassy shimmer of the sea"
anticipates the "faint flash of phosphorescent light"
so soon compared - for its suddennes and unpersistence
- to the "summer lightning in a summer sky". Second,
the corpse has no head, therefore his identity will be
difficult to reconstruct.
- Both observations are
relevant from the point of view of photographic
allusions. Light is a key-issue - for obvious reasons
- also in photography. The semantic insistence on its
quality has already been noted in Daguerre's,
Talbot's, Hills's, and Cameron's writings and it will
result in multiple lexical occurrences analogous to
the ones we spotted in Conrad's text. There, finally,
the "phosphorescent light" illuminates the gradual
appearance of a human profile'- as it happens in some
techniques of photographic "development" - culminating
in a description which tends to be photographic
(extremely detailed and yet not to be perceived as a
mimetic representation). An image emerging from
darkness - and possibly not even complete - Leggatt
appears as Hill's sitters, who - in Benjamin's
"Piccola Storia della fotografia" - are given as
laboriously takingshape in the deep gloom of the first
photographic portraits (Benjamin: 1966,
67)19.
- Water symbolism - with its
archetypal mythology of death and rebirth - is of
course implied here. However what is more relevant
from our point of view is that the technical,
procedural aspect supporting this rather obvious
symbolic reference parallels the processes of
photographic development. It is certainly true that in
early photography the immersion in a liquid chemical
compound is not basic in the process of making the
image appear. Nevertheless - be it fondamental or not
- it seems always implied. When Daguerre first
demonstrated to the public the working of his
daguerreotype - on August 19, 1839 - he specified that
the final stages of the process consisted in holding
"the exposed plate over hot mercury vapour until an
image appeared; the silver iodide was desensitized by
placing the plate in a hot solution of common salt or
removed using a solution of sodium thiosulfate. This
last treatment was followed by a series of rinses in
water and drying of the plate"20.
The image obtained through this process was extremely
fragile and impermanent. Just like
Leggatt.
- Fox Talbot's Calotype
replicates the same insistence on an analogous
process:
-
- To fix the
picture, it should be first washed with water,
then lightly dried with blotting paper, and then
washed with a solution of bromide potassium,
containing 100 grains of that salt dissolved in
eight or ten ounces of water. After a minute or
two, it should be again dipped in water and then
finally dried21.
-
- And in 1859, when the concept
of negative picture is definitely introduced, Wendell
Holmes - anticipating the manufacturing of paper
negatives by George Eastman in 188422
- gives a detailed description of the solution to be
used when developing it and to which
purposes:
-
- The negative
picture being formed, it is washed with a
solution of hyposulfate of soda, to remove the
soluble principles which are liable to
decomposition, and then coated with shellac
varnish to protect it. This negative is now to
give birth to a positive - this mass of
contradictions to assert its hidden truth in a
perfect harmonious affirmation of the realities
of nature. Behold the process! (Wendell Holmes:
1859, 739)
-
- The metaphoric reading of the
process is very clear: the old self (i.e. the negative
image) is to undergo a lavacrum through which
what is bad in it is to be eliminated (i.e.
"principles which are liable to decomposition") and a
new self (i.e. the positive image) is generated. The
recurrence of such an expression as "to give birth" in
what is supposed to be the description of a technical
proceeding is by no means accidental.
- The water symbolism will
stick to photography also in the following years, and
it will also keep its reference to a christening act.
Baptism as a way to wash one's self clean of anything
shameful is a conscious or unconscious reference
operating in the public's imagination at the turn of
the century, when listening to the technicalities
concerning the gum print - where the sensitized paper,
after having been exposed under the negative, had to
be washed to eliminate the gum and pigment not
affected by the light23
- or the ozotype - where, after the immersion of
exposed paper in an acid solution, the tissue was
peeled off to reveal an image then to be impressed on
paper24.
- Birth and Death are linked,
both in the cycle of life and in photography. If the
symbolism of rebirth is a metaphoric allusion
reinforcing the artistic and/or literary fascination
of this technique, from the point of view of marketing
death was much more profitable. Right from the
beginning, there was an enormous demand for family
pictures due to the sensitivity to mortality so
prominent in the nineteenth century, when the death
rate, particularly among children, was high. Portraits
of dead relatives were a way to keep them still in the
family, and therefore they were widely
popular25.
Technically, they were often made when the relatives
in question were already dead. Photography of corpses,
therefore, was a widespread and rewarding activity for
many professionals, not only because of money but also
in terms of technical results. Given the long time of
exposures required by early photography, while a
living sitter had problems in adapting to them and
remain perfectly still, a dead one consented to elude
this difficulty.
- And there is more.
Photographic portraits of this kind were perceived as
a challenge to death. They were a magic tool to give
new life to someone who had definitely lost his. They
were documents standing on the border between life and
death, and not belonging definitely to one realm or
the other.
- Leggatt, on his first
appearance, sports exactly the same characteristic.
Perceived at first - and with sudden horror - as a
corpse, he then acquires a new life: he is givena new
life, as it were, as a dead relative in a posthumous
portrait. The process of unveiling is quite
meaningful:
-
- The cigar
dropped out of my gaping mouth with a tiny plop
and a short hiss quite audible in the absolute
stillness of all things under heaven. At that I
suppose he raised up his face, a dimly pale oval
in the shadow of the ship's side. But even then
I could only barely make out down there the
shape of his black-haired head. However it was
enough for the horrid, frost-bound sensation
which had gripped me about the chest to pass
off. The moment of vain exclamations was past
too. I only climbed on the spare spar and leaned
over the rail as far as I could, to bring my
eyes nearer to that mystery floating
alongside.
-
- Unable to control his wonder
- and therefore dropping his cigar, his mouth gaping
wide - the narrator witnesses the sudden rebirth of a
presumed dead. From a stop-frame - "the absolute
stillness of all things under heaven" - we pass to a
moving image. The narrator's gaze becomes increasingly
attentive, while trying "to make out down there the
shape of his black-haired head". And when he does see
something, the "frost-bound sensation" invading him
effectively echoes the absolute stillness quoted at
the beginning of the passage. Both of them create a
semantic chain reinforcing the photographic allusion
to be revealed in "the mystery floating alongside".
The undeterminable semiosis of the body - its
unreadable metonymic description - marks Leggatt for
what he will be all through the story: a mirror image,
the soon found and soon lost twin brother.
- In 1859, Oliver Wendell
Holmes defines photography as "a mirror with memory"
(Wendell Holmes: 1859, 740). The definition works when
applied to the relation between the narrator and
Leggatt: the first has a solid existence, while the
latter has a story to tell. Memory is a sequence of
events providing a reason to his being a stranger, an
outcast, Cain - whereas nothing similar is available
to the Captain, whose chosen and suffered marginality
is without reason.
- In other words, Leggatt is a
portrait where the Captain's condition of an outcast
is made - if not accettable - understandable. That is
why the narrator perceives such a deep link with
Leggatt: he provides a sense to his own existence. The
narrator's "sensation of being in two places at once"
(SS: 206), his feeling that now "the ship had two
Captains to plan her course for her" (SS: 223) are
repeated reminders of his perceived kinship with what
he calls his "second invisible self" (SS: 208): his
twin brother, whose existence proves peculiarly
unstable.
- Strictly speaking, Leggatt
has no existence at all. It could easily be a product
of the Captain's schizophrenic psyche. His ontological
status is therefore uncertain, and it echoes the
ontological status of a photographic reproduction. The
intensifying reflections on the new medium - more or
less in the period when SS is written - stop focussing
on the mechanical character of reproduction to outline
a basic concept: "photography created its own category
of visual images resulting from the "independent" role
played by the object in the process of reproducing
and, more particularly, from the fact that the viewer
is constantly aware of this "independence" of the
object in its relation to both photographer and
medium." (Willis: 1995, 95)26.
- Always on the verge of
dissolution, Leggatt is perceived by the Captain as a
part of his own self: a twin invisible brother
suddenly appearing to tell his own story and provide
the narrator a mission on board of his own ship. A
meaning to his being there. This done, he swims
away:
-
- All at once
my strained, yearning stare distinguished a
white object floating within a yard of the
ship's side - white on the black water. A
phosphorescent flash passed under it. What was
that thing? ... I recognised my own floppy hat.
It must have fallen off his head ... and he
didn't brother. Now I had what I wanted - a
saving mark for my eyes (SS: 162).
-
- So the twin disappears, the
photographic portrait goes lost. In water, as it had
come, leaving only "An evanescent glimpse of my white
hat" (SS: 126): a synechdoche for the brother he has
left on board of the ship.
|