betrayal. The author also uses reference to historical characters which suggests a cyclical view of history as producing situations that repeat, although the human race is unable to learn from past mistakes. Whether the reference is to Julius Caesar, Mussolini, or Aeneas and Dido from literature, the effect is ambiguous. For one reader it might enlarge the character’s stature, for another underline its non-existence. Another way of defending Humphreys’s practice is to suppose that he is showing how the unknown are as significant as the famous; that an ordinary character can be the subject of tragedy.
The title of the third novel, A Change of Heart (1951), is followed by the description ‘A Comedy’, and this marks an obvious difference from the first two novels. On the other hand, it is still reliant on Shakespeare for its plot. The central action bears strong similarity to Hamlet. Simultaneously, the author is using the Oedipus complex as part-explanation of the psychology of the protagonist, and for the first time Humphreys is drawing a definite link between myth and psychoanalysis. The central Oedipal relationship is the damaging connection between Howell Morris and his mother, but this is emphasized by all of the younger generation being damaged by their relationship with their mothers. Celtic myth is again introduced, this time the story of Geraint and Enid, which is used as a counter-pattern to the romantic relationships, emphasizing the fallibility of Lucy and Gwen and the lack of heroic qualities in Howell and Frank. Both Lucy and Gwen may also be seen as modern versions of Blodeuwedd, dissatisfied with their original choice of partner and becoming unfaithful women. Hamlet is used both by direct quotation in the text, for example, the linking of Sir Goronwy Annwyl with Polonius by ‘nothing he would more willingly part withal’,40 and by the basic plot situation, which also reveals the basic weakness of the novel. Frank’s sister, Lucy, is dead and he blames Howell, his brother-in-law. It is the basic Laertes – Ophelia – Hamlet situation but centred on Frank’s search for the truth about his sister’s death. The language also elevates Frank to the position of tragic protagonist: ‘He was profoundly disturbed by an awareness of the pressure of Fate closing in upon him’.41 The problem is that the novel began by centring on Howell, the Hamlet figure, and it is unbalanced by this switch.
Alongside this use of Hamlet Humphreys portrays Howell as rendered sexually impotent by his domineering, possessive but cold mother. This is not then a Hamlet–Gertrude relationship, but the kind of overpowering domination exerted by Mrs Morel in Sons and Lovers, the Oedipus complex which affects the dominated son’s ability to form successful heterosexual relationships. The puzzle at the heart of the novel is never solved: at the conclusion Howell does not know what really happened with Lucy and the reader remains ignorant about his sexual orientation. The novel does not work as a puzzle because there is no solution; nor does it constitute ‘A Comedy’, as the title claims, simply because the protagonists do not die at the end. The use of the Oedipus complex works against the use of Hamlet to confuse the reader as to whether the novelist is writing a sociological, psychological or detective-style novel. This third novel is extremely problematic in its convoluted patterns and allusions, which appear to have no overall purpose but, rather, are selected on a ‘the more the better’ approach. Neither does the setting in Wales contribute to the idea of Humphreys as a promoter of Wales or as an explorer of Wales’s variety. It is much closer to a portrayal of Wales by an outsider or an exile, which indeed Humphreys was when the novel was written, in its cynical portrayal of a bigoted, narrow-minded society.
The fourth novel, Hear and Forgive (1952), moves back to England for its setting and is less dependent than the previous novels on any prefiguration or structural patterning. However, the result is a novel which is a detailed character study with very little plot; a novel in which nothing much happens. This suggests that Humphreys, as a young novelist, did in fact need a strongly plotted ‘story’, whether from history, myth or literature, in order to aid his own construction of a dynamic plot but had not yet found the right balance, either over- or under-loading each plot. This novel, then, has the least plot action of any of Humphreys’s novels, and in critical terms might be considered one of his least successful.42 When the four novels are viewed together, it becomes clear that there are several common areas: they are set in areas and landscapes that are familiar to the author; the main characters are relatively young; the novels are based on areas of his experience with regard to careers; and their common theme is that of individual responsibility and choice, and of Christian conscience – the ideas explored in Humphreys’s articles published around this time.43 However, when Humphreys uses texts of any kind to bolster his own material, whether they are Welsh or not appears to be immaterial. Wales is present, because it is part of Humphreys’s background, not because it is the subject of discussion. However, this was about to change.
A MAN’S ESTATE AND THE ITALIAN WIFE
In The Taliesin Tradition Humphreys writes that: ‘The manufacture and proliferation of myth must always be a major creative activity among a people with unnaturally high expectations reduced by historic necessity, or at least history, forced into what is often described as a marginal condition.’44 This could well explain why Humphreys turned to myth as his desire to write about Wales increased. There is little obvious connection between the fourth novel and the fifth, A Man’s Estate (1955), in which Humphreys returns to heavy prefiguration, this time using the Orestes–Electra myth. Perhaps Humphreys was able to see the weaknesses in his fourth novel in spite of its success. A Man’s Estate marks a return to the detailed prefiguring which occurred in The Little Kingdom, and like that novel it is also chiefly set in Wales, with a strong discussion within the text of the differences between Wales and England, which are symbolized by the differences between Hannah and Philip Elis, a brother and sister brought up separately, one Welsh, the other a Welsh exile in England. Humphreys uses the debate inherent within the classical dramatizations of the myth to stimulate and give resonance to his own examination of the dichotomy between the die-hard traditionalist Welsh stance and that of the anglicized Welshman.
It might be assumed that Humphreys used drama rather than myth for his prefiguring device, since the Orestes myth is best known through the plays of Greek dramatists. It might also be assumed that he used Aeschylus’s Oresteia, which is the most comprehensive treatment of the myth.45 However, Humphreys focuses strongly on Hannah Elis and, whereas Electra is an important character in The Choephori of Aeschylus, she is certainly more prominent in Sophocles’ and Euripides’ plays bearing her name. Eugene O’Neill’s Mourning Becomes Electra also focuses on Electra and, alongside T. S. Eliot’s The Family Reunion, would undoubtedly have been familiar to the author.46 We know of Eliot’s importance to Humphreys, since he has himself written of his early career: ‘From Eliot particularly I learned that poetic drama was the ultimate form all poets should aspire to, and that in most cases these efforts would need a structure derived from classical myth.’47 It is not surprising then that Humphreys turned to classical myth, particularly if he had arrived at a point of realization that, although his novels were well received, they lacked a strong storyline. He could hardly have chosen a story with more significance or one better equipped to deal with cultural divisions or change and gender difference. The importance of myth to the leading modernists so admired by Humphreys also meant that any use of myth, especially a myth well established in contemporary literature, would mean that the audience would be aware of any ‘difference’ in an author’s focus, whether the focus was psychological, political or gender based.
Humphreys, unlike any of the Greek dramatists, opens with Orestes’ point of view. Philip Esmor-Elis is motivated by the need for money and family background with which to impress his girlfriend’s father (the epitome of English materialism and snobbery) rather than by revenge. Humphreys is claiming from the beginning a vast difference between his society and that of classical drama. Philip has grown up like Orestes in exile, but with his father’s mistress rather than a family retainer. Rather than longing for reunion with his sister and the deaths of his parents, Philip is almost oblivious of their existence until his treacherous friend (unlike Pylades) sends him off to Wales to obtain his patrimony. However, as the plot unfolds the reader is very aware that the family structure and past events are based
