J.S. Marcus’ Jan.21st article on Beatrix Potter in the Wall
Street journal states that “at the height of her fame, she began to wind down
her career to devote herself to sheep farming in England’s Lake District.”
In reality, she chose to devote herself to her husband and
become Mrs. Heelis. Mrs. Heelis, as Mrs. Heelis, would of course be “a country
woman” and involved in animal husbandry and care of the farm and gardens. Why
should this fact be less accessible to the current readers of newspapers than
the fact that she became a “woman farmer”?
The article continues and finishes in similar fashion:
The curmudgeonly Mrs. Heelis with muddy clogs |
“…but according to a BBC radio documentary about the writer,
she developed a curmudgeonly streak and, eventually a reputation for not liking
children all that much. By the 1920s, Potter, now known as Mrs. Heelis, was
shouting down misbehaving Lake District children…. this final incarnation of
Beatrix Potter is evoked in the (new exhibition at London’s Victoria and Albert
Museum) by a pair of her crude farmer’s clogs.”
Oh dear. Married, miffed by miscreants ruining her
shrubberies, AND possessed of muddy farmer’s clogs. How far she managed
to fall from the accolades and fame she earned for pictures of bunnies in
waistcoats and hedgehogs in ruffled aprons!
When will the world realize that the measure of a person is in how small and insignificant, they’ve managed to become in some forgotten part of the world, and whether they have found someone to love, and love well?
I really appreciate your take on this story. Insightful as always.
ReplyDelete