In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick

SurrogacyTM

Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

At PortobelloSusannah Clapp
Close

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website (www.lrb.co.uk — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.


  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Close
Scotch Verdict 
by Lillian Faderman.
Quartet, 320 pp., £12.95, February 1985, 0 7043 2505 5
Show More
Show More

In March 1811 a 15-year-old girl testified to the Edinburgh Court of Session that the mistresses in charge of her boarding-school had been ‘indecent together’. They had, she said, regularly visited each other in bed: they had lain one on top of the other, lifted up their night shifts and made the bed shake. And they had produced a strange noise – a noise that was ‘like putting one’s finger into the neck of a wet bottle’. Jane Cumming was giving evidence in the libel suit brought against her grandmother, Dame Helen Cumming Gordon, by the two schoolmistresses. Marianne Woods and Jane Pirie claimed that, acting on the word of her granddaughter, Dame Helen had brought about the ruin of their school and their reputations: she had withdrawn Jane Cumming from the school and caused the other pupils to be removed; she had not given the teachers a reason for her behaviour; the child’s allegations were without foundation.

Lillian Faderman, Distinguished Professor of English at California State University, has worked her way through the transcripts of the trial, and finds in them the source of Lillian Hellman’s play The Children’s Hour, which deals with a similar libel suit in 1930s America. This is surprising, but may be correct. In both cases, the suit is brought against a grand old grandmother; in both a hammy actress aunt causes trouble; both feature evidence obtained by a peep through a keyhole – in a door which turns out to have no keyhole. Hellman could have read an account of the Edinburgh trial published in 1930 by the legal historian William Roughead. Professor Faderman became interested in The Children’s Hour because it treated a once-forbidden subject: lesbianism. Her concern with the Scotch case is also fuelled by proselytising zeal. She has used her transcript materials freely: intertwining her own experiences with her woman lover, Ollie; making dialogues out of depositions; popping character sketches into the mouths of judges, and mingling speculation and quotation in a way which makes it difficult to separate fact from special pleading. The effect is ramshackle, but the story she has unearthed is striking.

Jane Pirie and Marianne Woods had been friends for seven years when they decided to start a girls’ school together: to become, as Lillian Faderman quaintly puts it, ‘their own mistresses’. Both were in their mid-twenties and used to giving lessons: Miss Woods had helped her Uncle William – an ex-actor and lush – with his elocution classes; Miss Pirie, with whom Professor Faderman identifies, was a governess, described by one employer as having an ‘ardent’ temper, and by another as finding it ‘crucial to her happiness’ to live in Edinburgh, ‘where she is near a dear friend’. Dame Helen Cumming Gordon was important to them from the beginning. Having enrolled her granddaughter – the illegitimate child of her dead eldest son and an Indian teenager – as one of the school’s first pupils, she became an active recruiter of further students among the upper classes. Her influence was considerable: when Dame Helen sent notes to the mothers of these girls saying she was taking her granddaughter away from the school ‘for very serious reasons’, and advising them to do the same, they complied within days. A year after the school had opened it was without a single pupil.

Jane Cumming was in a good position to know what was going on between her teachers – and in a good position to lie about it. The ten boarders at the school were divided into two dormitories, in each of which one of the mistresses shared a bed with a pupil; Jane Cumming shared with Miss Pirie. Exactly why this arrangement was felt to be necessary is obscure: Professor Faderman thinks the teachers wanted to make sure that their pupils weren’t masturbating; Ollie thinks they wanted to make sure the girls weren’t having sex together. When they went on holiday to the seaside town of Portobello the teachers took Jane Cumming with them: Miss Pirie and Miss Woods shared a bed; Miss Cumming slept in a bed at the foot of theirs. She claimed it was at Portobello that she had first been disturbed by whispering, kissing and ‘shaking the bed’ in the early mornings. She said that on returning to the school and her shared bed with Miss Pirie she was often woken by Miss Woods climbing into the bed, where she ‘lay above’ her friend and ‘began to move’. She said she heard Miss Pirie say: ‘You are hurting me,’ ‘You are in the wrong place,’ and ‘Oh, do it, darling.’ She reported feeling the naked skin of the teachers’ legs as they lifted up their night things, and she reported the wet bottle noise, which was also quite like that of ‘a dairy maid patting butter’.

Her testimony revealed her as a knowing girl who liked to disconcert and who had a flair for rather crude dramatics. She described staging scenes to embarrass the teachers: setting up conversations with the other girls about disturbances in the night and requiring them to stare at the women’s faces to see if they blushed. She recalled giggles among the pupils who saw Miss Pirie leaving her friend’s bed in stockings and a red garter. Some of her evidence was shakily presented: she revised her account of the teachers’ nightwear, from scanty shifts to bundles of bedgowns, wrappers and petticoats. Some of it was discredited by investigation. A maid at the school, Charlotte Whiffin, was said to have spoken darkly about the teachers’ conduct, and to have looked through a keyhole and seen them lying together. Miss Whiffin denied ever saying the teachers had behaved improperly, and the keyhole was found not to exist.

Whatever the truth of her statements, it is certain that Jane Cumming was a stirrer: much of the evidence produced by other pupils was found to hinge on conversations with her. Eliza Stirling said that she had once been woken by someone praying very loudly, and that she had thought one of the teachers rather bad-tempered: but it wasn’t until talking to Jane Cumming that she’d known their behaviour was ‘improper’ and had wanted to leave the school. Janet Munro, who shared a bed with Miss Woods, had more to say, claiming that Miss Pirie had often climbed into their bed, and that high breathing and tossing of the bedclothes had followed; she said she had once coughed to alert the teachers, and once nudged a friend to let her know what was going on. Yet when asked if the other girls had been aware of the deafening kisses and gropings, she wasn’t sure; questioned as to how she knew the mistresses were naked, she said she knew because ‘it was the dead of night.’ Her imagination seems to have been inflamed by chatting with Jane Cumming, and with a maid at home, who proclaimed that one of the teachers must surely be a man, and that both should ‘be burned’. After this conversation, Miss Munro, who was a little deaf, took to lying with her bad ear on the pillow.

None of the pupils’ testimony was conclusive, much of it was skimpy, and all of it subject to charges of misconstruction – or fabrication. But the girls’ attentiveness and the peculiarity of some of what they said suggest that something was going on, that strangeness was in the air. One of the least expected and most telling pieces of evidence was offered by Janet Munro, who was not generally remarkable for her shrewdness. Asked if she had thought the teachers’ friendship unusual, apart from their caresses, she replied that she had. Asked why, she said: ‘They quarrelled.’ Professor Faderman, who believes the women were having a romantic but not a sexual friendship, thinks that what the girls construed as sexual deeds may have been the teachers ‘in combat. Shaking each other, out of fury’, and adds: ‘I think I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times Ollie and I have seriously quarrelled in 11 years.’

Marianne Woods and Jane Pirie left records of their squabbles in letters: the very existence of these, written when the two women were living in the same house, could be thought a sign of an unusual partnership. On sending her friend a Bible for her birthday, Jane Pirie wrote a note addressing Miss Woods as her ‘beloved’, and declaring that she ‘would forego all friendship, but her God’s, to possess your’s’. Two weeks later Miss Woods was announcing her intention to leave the school, and Miss Pirie was responding with accusations of duplicity and lack of discretion: ‘The letters I unfortunately received from you shall never be left tossing around for anyone’s perusal as you left mine.’ The main source of discord seems to have been Marianne Woods’s aunt, an ex-actress who had helped the women set up the school and who, like the ex-actress in Hellman’s play, interfered with the teachers’ arrangements and failed to appear for them in court. Jane Pirie wanted her out, and protested against her friend’s protectiveness with wild underlinings: Miss Woods’s behaviour was ‘unworthy’, ‘selfish’ and placed Miss Pirie in a ‘contemptible’ position; some of her letters were, in a favourite locution, ‘tossed’ into the fire.

One of the judges is reported, or condensed, as saying that ‘a man can feel lust towards a woman whom he despises, but women are not so constituted from my observations.’ Faderman believes that these men were ill-equipped to preside over the case, and she presents their judgments with some tendentiousness. Counsel for the teachers, John Clerk, whom sources not cited by Professor Faderman credited with at least two natural offspring, is here said not to have diverted ‘himself much with women’; she stresses the conventionally restricted attitudes of all the judges. First, Dame Helen was the wife of Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Penrose Cumming of Altyre, who had inherited the Gordonstoun estate: those who found against her did so with reluctance and regret. Her guardianship of Jane Cumming was thought to overcome even the disability of illegitimacy, while the testimony of a maid was considered of little consequence, since ‘falsehood is the ordinary vice of persons in her line of life.’ Secondly, they were ill-disposed to the non-British, or non-Scots. Jane Cumming, ‘wanting in the advantage of ... a European complexion’, was likely to lie, and was likely to be sexually imaginative: ‘It is an historical fact ... that the language of the Hindoo female domestics turns chiefly on the commerce of the sexes.’ Thirdly, many of them thought that sex between women in Scotland didn’t and couldn’t take place: it was ‘equally imaginary with witchcraft, sorcery, or carnal copulation with the devil’. They were prepared to concede that there was some evidence of women arousing each other in distant countries and times, but such arousal was thought to necessitate either the use of ‘tools’ or an ‘extraordinary conformation’ of the women’s parts – and according to Professor Faderman the Scottish clitoris was forensically stated to be ‘not larger than the nipple of the breast’. Anyway, such excitements had usually taken place merely as a preparation for intercourse with a man, and there was no man in this case. Counsel for Dame Helen produced a list of literary tribades featured in works by Diderot, Lucian, Massinger and others: it was protested that even the Ancients couldn’t say what the women actually did.

These judges can easily be made to seem absurd and literal-minded, as judges often can: one was anxious to know whether Jane Cumming had noticed any ‘puffs of air’ rising up from the bedclothes when the teachers were tussling. Yet they showed some pertinacity in reaching a verdict. They decided by one vote in favour of Dame Helen. The teachers asked that the case be reviewed and, eight months after the first verdict, a slightly different collection of men awarded them damages – again by one vote. Dame Helen then appealed to the House of Lords, who took seven years to decide that she had to pay, and that, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, the case was ‘of such a nature that the less it is discussed publicly the better.’ A long wrangle about the size of damages – for loss of income and for ‘solace’ – followed, with the parties apparently settling out of court in 1821. Jane Pirie stayed in Edinburgh, unemployed and in bad health; Marianne Woods moved with her aunt to London, and taught literature at Camden House Academy.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.