Prologue:
I drafted the post below before 17 August 2016, when there
appeared online an article for the Boston
Review, “One Long Poem,” by Heather Treseler, about some of the troubling
contents in recently surfaced letters that Bishop wrote to the psychiatrist Dr.
Ruth Foster: revelations of abuse Bishop suffered while living with Maude and
George Shepherdson. George is identified as the abuser.
Coincidentally, the final letter that Bishop wrote to Grace
in 1956, 2 December, contained the first mention of George Shepherdson in this
correspondence (at least in what is extant). I try to have a couple of posts
ahead, and this is one of several that I’d been deferring as I worked through other
subjects.
When I read the Treseler piece, I was dismayed but not
surprised. I had suspicions about such experiences and who the perpetrator
might be, but had no concrete evidence (if you read between the lines of
Bishop’s work, it is a reasonable speculation — but until direct evidence surfaced,
it remained only speculation). It is, sadly, no longer speculation.
No one (biographer, literary critic, fellow poet, general
reader) will ever be able to understand fully the impact and ramifications of
these experiences on Bishop’s life and art. We can imagine and speculate, and
can see some of their impact in the writing. But most of the impact is now
lost. Over the years as I researched the life of Bishop’s mother, Gertrude
Bulmer Bishop, the more I learned about her circumstances the more I realized
how little I could ever really know. I could only guess, trying to be reasonable
and respectful in those guesses. What I did come to understand better was that
Gertrude remained a powerful force in her daughter’s life. The nature of the
influence was highly complex and most of it, too, is now lost; but I felt I
could make that general claim with reasonable certainty.
I thought about scrapping this post and avoiding George
Shepherdson entirely, but Bishop’s references to him in her letters to Grace
(and there are a number of them over the years) are fascinating in light of his
unforgivable actions. That she speaks of him at all, so many years after the
abuse and while he is still alive, is remarkable, considering what he did. I
have opinions about what that means, but they can only be that, in the end:
opinions.
The draft of my post
before I read Treseler’s article:
Bishop’s last extant letter to Grace for 1956 is dated 2
December. She had received a letter from her aunt “a month & a day” before,
but Bishop declared, “I thought it was about 2 weeks!” — a sign that Bishop’s
life was busy and that she experienced what we all do, that persistent sense of
time flying by.
Grace’s letter had clearly updated Bishop on health matters,
in particular a visit to a doctor for “a check-up (what Lota calls a ‘shake-up’
— and I think it’s a pretty good word for it, sometimes).” Grace had expressed
some concerns about the doctor not doing a “cardiogram” to test her heart, but
Bishop, in a sagacious tone reassured Grace, “if your blood pressure is normal
that’s a fine sign — particularly when you are slightly on the stylish stout
side!” One wonders what Grace, a nurse since 1914, thought of Bishop’s
assessment that unless Grace’s heart was “ringing like a gong, or something”
the doctor wouldn’t need to do such a test. “No doctor these days,” Bishop
writes with authority, “lets a patient go without a heart-test if there’s the
faintest symptoms of anything wrong.” Since he hadn’t seen a need to do so,
Grace’s heart must be just fine.
But just to make sure, Bishop suggests that perhaps Grace,
if she is worried, should switch from sugar to saccarine [sic], something she herself had done. No sacrifice was made by
doing so because, to Bishop, it didn’t “make a bit of difference in the taste”
of her coffee (she took “only…a little sugar in black coffee). She used a brand
of liquid saccharin called “SWEETA” and even put it in iced tea and lemonade.
She also used a small saccharin pill, but it took longer to dissolve. The pills
were convenient to carry in one’s purse, “I always carry a little pill box
now,” she told her aunt.
Grace had also brought her brother-in-law George Shepherdson
into her letter, into the discussion about heart health, because Bishop also responded:
“Uncle G talked about his heart for years & years before there was anything the matter with it, I’m sure.” In
Bishop’s estimation, “he probably brought it on by talking about it.”
George Shepherdson married Maude Bulmer in 1908. It was Maude
and George who raised Bishop. She went to live with them in the spring of 1918.
At that time, they lived in Revere,
Massachusetts. Bishop’s
relationship with this uncle by marriage was likely fraught. [Ed. note: An understatement, of course.]
George was an imposingly tall man, who was known universally as a teaser. [Ed. note: Well, he was, sadly, much more
than that; but this is how Phyllis Sutherland, who knew him much less well, described
him to me.] Bishop remembered going to museums in Boston with him. Maude took her to art
galleries. In his early days, he was an adherent of the Sons of Temperance in Great Village.
By the time Bishop was with them, this giant of a man, who didn’t seem able to
hold down a job, enjoyed a drink or two with his Irish neighbour (whom he
disparaged behind his back) out on the porch in the evenings. Bishop’s
strongest characterization of him in her writing (an unfinished story called
“Mrs. Sullivan Downstairs”) was that he was a hypocrite. When Bishop went to Key West in the 1930s,
Maude and George went too and took up residence nearby.
By 1956, George was an elderly widower living in Amherst, N.S.
Maude died in 1940. He re-surfaces in Bishop’s letters to Grace in the 1960s,
at the time of his death. But in the December 1956 letter, Bishop tells Grace
that she “wrote to him twice, you know, but he didn’t answer.” In spite of her
gallivanting about and working in the U.S., Grace still maintained some
sort of contact with him. [Ed. Note: It
appears that she, or the rest of the Bulmers, did not know what he had done.]
Before the saccharin subject is abandoned, Bishop advises
Grace to tell “Poor Uncle George” about this wonderful substitute and ventured
the opinion that “if he’d cut out sugar and white bread he’d lose [weight], I
bet.” “Remember how much bread he eats? and sugar in everything, ‘for flavor’.”
Even with their fraught relationship, and with a “housekeeper” who “certainly
sounds pretty dreary,” Bishop was far enough away in space and time to be able
to “feel sorry for him.”
Afterthought:
Until Treseler’s article, I could only go so far as
“fraught.” I probably did not want to believe my suspicions. But when they were
confirmed my first response was questions: How is it that Bishop could stand to
mention George Shepherdson’s name? Not only that, she was able to label him,
diminish him, and pity him. Abusers are failed human beings who wreak havoc.
The abused often can never reclaim their lives after such trauma. But somehow
Bishop, at least in some part, on some level, took her uncle’s power away from
him and reclaimed her own. Was it art? Was it Ruth Foster’s help? Was it
Bishop’s own inner strength? It was likely all of these and more. How could
Maude have allowed this abuse? My opinion, based on what I’ve read (between the
lines), is that Maude was likely an abused spouse.
It seems that abuse is the last trauma (the last “dark
secret” — and it is the biggest one, the one that always remained utterly
hidden and unspoken) of Bishop’s childhood. Her list is long: the death of her
father when she was eight months old; the loss of her mother to mental illness
when she was five; this newly revealed violation beginning (so the letters to
Foster say) when she was eight. Part of the impact of these traumas were: her
adult alcoholism (though she came by it honestly, as men on both sides of her
family were alcoholics); her thoughts and attempts of suicide; her troubled
relationships and affairs. That Bishop not only survived but also persevered is
heroic. It bespeaks some outside goodness, which in some way counter-balanced
the trauma: kind and caring family (her maternal grandparents and beloved Aunt
Grace); once she began school, supportive teachers and friends; and loving
partners. But Bishop’s survival must have come, primarily, from her inner
resources (her imagination, curiosity, precocious understanding of and deep
belief in beauty, sense of humour and irony). These things needed to be
fostered by the outside world, but mostly they needed to exist in the first
place. Bishop struggled her whole life, but she also lived a creative life.
These revelations will be written about at length, I am sure. Hopefully, they
will be treated as respectfully and carefully as Treseler has done, as she has
brought them to light.
The next post will be about politics.
Click here to see part 20.
The next post will be about politics.
Click here to see part 20.
No comments:
Post a Comment