Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T23:06:06.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EM Forster's will: an overlooked posthumous publication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Daniel Monk
Daniel Monk*
Affiliation:
Birkbeck College, University of London
*
Daniel Monk, Reader in Law, School of Law, Birkbeck College, University of London, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HX, UK. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Focusing on a single, uncontested will is unusual within legal studies. And the extensive literature about EM Forster has overlooked the significance of his will. This article endeavours to address these silences and develop a conversation between the two. It first explores the place of inheritance in Forster's life and novels; and in doing so highlights his interest in inheritance as both a concept and a practice. Turning then to his will, it argues that it reveals a reflective personal and political engagement with concerns about kinship, sexuality and intimate citizenship which are central to current debates within socio-legal and sociological scholarship. This reading consequently argues that his will is a text that can be read alongside his other work; that it represents a ‘posthumous publication’. While a close, critical reading of the will of one very particular individual, the article identifies the challenges posed to testators in negotiating the public and private nature of wills and highlights both the rich potential and the difficulties that these texts present for socio-legal, literary and biographical scholarship.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 572 - 597
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The research for this paper was primarily undertaken during a sabbatical leave based at Tel Aviv University and I would like to thank the Law School, and in particular Daphna Hacker, for their collegiality and hospitality. I would also like to thank the anonymous referees for their helpful comments.

References

1. SeeGoose, N andEvans, N ‘Wills as an historical source’ inArkell, T,Evans, N andGoose, N (eds) When Death Do Us Part: Understanding and Interpreting the Probate Records of Early Modern England (Oxford: Leopard's Head Press, 2000);Google Scholar Whittle, J ‘Housewives and servants in rural England, 1440–1650: evidence of women's work from probate documents’ (2005) 15 Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 51 Google Scholar; Craig, J andLitzenberger, C ‘Wills as religious propaganda: the testament of William Tracy’ (1993) 44 Journal of Ecc History 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Levenbook, B ‘Harming someone after his death’ (1984) Ethics 94;Google Scholar Marquis, D ‘Harming the dead’ (1985) Ethics 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Beckert, J Inherited Wealth (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008);Google Scholar Friedman, L Dead Hands: A Social History of Wills, Trusts and Inheritance Law (Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books, 2009);Google Scholar Miller, R andMcNamee, SJ (eds) Inheritance and Wealth in America (New York: Plenum Press, 1997).Google Scholar

4. Frank, CO Law, Literature and the Transmission of Culture in England, 1837–1925 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010);Google Scholar Counter, A Inheritance in Nineteenth-century French Culture: Wealth, Knowledge and the Family (Oxford: Legenda, 2010).Google Scholar

5. Kerridge, R Parry and Kerridge: The Law of Succession (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 12th edn, 2009).Google Scholar For comparative legal analysis, seeReid, Kgc, deWaal, M andZimmerman, R (eds) Exploring the Law of Succession (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007).Google Scholar

6. See egBlumenthal, S ‘The deviance of the will: policing the bounds of testamentary freedom in nineteenth-century America’ (2006) 119 Harvard Law Review 959;Google Scholar Leslie, MB ‘The myth of testamentary freedom’ (1996) 38 Arizona Law Review 235;Google Scholar Maillard, KN ‘The colour of testamentary freedom’ (2009) 62 Southern Methodist University Law Review 1783.Google Scholar

7. Finch, J,Mason, J,Masson, J,Hayes, L andWallis, L Wills, Inheritance and Families (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1996);Google Scholar Finch, J andMason, J Passing on Kinship and Inheritance in England (London: Routledge, 2000).Google Scholar

8. Law CommissionIntestacy and Family Provision Claims on Death (Law Com 331, 2011); Humphreys, A,Mill, L,Morrell, G,Douglas, G andWoodward, H Inheritance and the Family: Attitudes to Will-making and Intestacy (London: NATCEN, 2010);Google Scholar Williams, C,Potter, G andDouglas, G ‘Cohabitation and intestacy: public opinion and law reform’ (2008) 20 Child and Family Law Quarterly 499.Google Scholar

9. Moffatt, W EM Forster: A New Life (London: Bloomsbury, 2010) p 322.Google Scholar

10. SeeJaconelli, J ‘Wills as public documents: privacy and property rights’ (2012) 71 Cambridge Law Journal 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Armed with his name and year of death, Forster's will was accessed in person at the Probate Registry in London (and a copy provided at a cost of £5) within less than an hour.

12. See Anne Oldfield's will inLafler, J ‘The will of Katherine Maynwaring: an autobiographical reading’ (1997) 20 Biography 156 at 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Lafler argues that Maynwaring's 14 codicils represented a form of ‘mediating upon and revising her identity’. Ibid, at 173.

14. See Frank's discussion of the wills of Charles Dickens and George Eliot, above n 4, pp 56 and 58.

15. See eg the letter in Re Kauffmann's Will (1965) discussed bySherman, JG ‘Undue influence and the homosexual testator’ (1981) 42 U Pitt L Rev 225 at 239–246.Google Scholar

16. Frank, above n 4, pp 52–55; Hacker, D ‘Soulless wills’ (2010) 35 Law and Social Inquiry 957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Gordon, DS argues that wills should include language that is ‘more individualized, evocative, and expressive’ in ‘Reflecting on the language of death’ (2010) 34 Seattle Law Review 379 at 394.Google Scholar See alsoHorton, D ‘Testation and speech’ (2012) 101 Geo LJ (forthcoming).Google Scholar

17. Frank, above, n 4, p 55.

18. Lafler, above, n 12, p 158.

19. Forster, EM Marianne Thornton: A Domestic Biography, 1797–1887 (London: Harcourt Brace, 1956) p 289.Google Scholar King, F argues that his early financial independence had a negative consequence on his writing in EM Forster (London: Thames & Hudson, 1978) p 30.Google Scholar

20. Furbank, PN EM Forster: A Life (London, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977) pp 202 and 290.Google Scholar

21. Forster, EM The Longest Journey (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2006 [1st edn London: Edward Arnold, 1907]) p 190. Later the narrator notes that Agnes ‘could not feel that Stephen had full human rights. He was illicit, abnormal, worse than a man diseased.’Google Scholar Ibid, p 139.

22. Ibid, p 285.

23. His last novel, A Passage to India, was published in 1926.

24. SeeCretney, S ‘Reform of intestacy: the best we can do?’ (1995) 111 Law Quarterly Review 77.Google Scholar

25. Neither the Legitimacy Act 1926 nor the Legitimacy Act 1959 provided for inheritance rights.

26. Martin, RK ‘“It must have been the umbrella”: Forster's queer begetting’ inMartin, RK andPiggford, G (eds) Queer Forster (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1997) p 271.Google Scholar

27. Law Commission, above n 8.

28. Baines, BK Ethical Wills: Putting Your Values on Paper (London: Di Capo Press, 2nd edn, 2006);Google Scholar Hacker, above n 16.

29. Forster, EM, Howards End (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2000 [1st edn, London: Edward Arnold, 1910]) p 80.Google Scholar

30. Ibid, ch XV, pp 107–110.

31. Parkinson, RN ‘The inheritors, or a single ticket for Howards End’ inDas, GK andBeer, J (eds) EM Forster: A Human Exploration (New York: New York University Press, 1979) pp 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Forster, above n 29, pp 84–85.

33. Ibid, pp 291–292. See Frank, above n 4, p 210.

34. Delaney, P ‘“Islands of money”: rentier culture in Howard's End ’ inTambling, J (ed) EM Forster: Contemporary Critical Essays (London: Macmillan Press, 1995) p 76.Google Scholar

35. Da Silva, S ‘Transvaluing immaturity: reverse discourses of male homosexuality in Em Forster's posthumously published fiction’ (1998) 6 Criticism 286.Google Scholar

36. This refers to any will that fails to follow a traditional genealogical approach. See Horton, above n 16.

37. Halberstam, J In a Queer Time and Place (New York: New York University Press, 2005) p 6.Google Scholar

38. See Blumenthal, above n 6, and Monk, D ‘Sexuality and succession law: beyond formal equality’ (2011) 19 Feminist Legal Studies 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. Frank, above n 4, and Counter, above n 4.

40. Lewis, LS ‘Some peculiar wills’ (1897) 14 Strand Magazine 441,Google Scholar cited in Frank, above n 4, p 3.

41. SeeStape, JH An EM Forster Chronology (London: Macmillan, 1993) pp 66 and 169;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Finch, J EM Forster and English Place: A Literary Topography (Turku: Åbo Akademi University Press, 2011) p 14.Google Scholar

42. Millgate, M Testamentary Acts: Browning, Tennyson, James, Hardy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992) p 153.Google Scholar

43. Such clauses were, however, not unusual and Millgate suggests that ‘features which caused raised eyebrows in London … may in Dorsetshire have been adopted almost automatically as standard practice’. Ibid, pp 154–155. A similar clause is central to George Eliot's Middlemarch (1874). See Monk, above n 38.

44. Sunday Express, 26 February 1928, p 12.

45. Evening Standard, 14 April 2007. See also ‘Gay lover of dead flamboyant Tv presenter loses legal battle over property portfolio’ Daily Telegraph 10 August 2011.

46. In re Anonymous 75 Misc. 2d 133, 347 NYS 2d 263 (Sur Ct 1973). See Sherman, above n 15. A potential will dispute resulting in an involuntary ‘outing’ is also key to the plot in Stephen Benetar's novel The Man on the Bridge set in the 1950s (London: Harvester Press, 1981; London: Welbeck Modern Classics, 2009, p 174).

47. Millgate, above n 42, p 108.

48. Forster, EM Aspects of the Novel (London: Edward Arnold, 1960 [1st end, London: Edward Arnold, 1927]) p 147.Google Scholar See alsoForster, EM, ‘Terminal note’ to Maurice written in September 1960 (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983 [1st edn, London: Edward Arnold, 1971]) p 220 andGoogle Scholar Haralson, E ‘“Thinking about homosex” in Forster and James’ in Martin, and Piggford, , above n 26, p 59.Google Scholar

49. Yoshino, K Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights (New York: Random House, 2006).Google Scholar

50. This is the case not simply in relation to himself but others too – for example in his capacity as executor and biographer of Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson and as a frequent writer of obituaries. SeeBristow, J ‘Fratrum societati: Forster's apostolic dedications’ in Martin, and Piggford, , above n 26, p 132.Google Scholar

51. Wilkinson, LP states that ‘he did not even make a will until he was well into his eighties’ in ‘The later years’ inStape, JH (ed) EM Forster: Interviews and Recollections (London: Macmillan, 1993) p 177. But Stape notes that in 1925 Forster decided to cut Siegfried Sassoon from his will and appoint JR Ackerley and Florence Berger as co-literary executors.Google Scholar Stape, above n 41, p 89. Moreover,King, refers to Ackerley receiving £500 (EM Forster (London: Thames & Hudson, 1978) p 104), whereas the will refers to £100 and Moffat (above n 9, p 322) refers to a gift to Massoud's children who are not in the will. To add to the confusion, Forster refers to arrangements in his will in a letter to Christopher Isherwood dated 15 October 1952.Google Scholar Zeikowitz, RE Letters between Forster and Isherwood on Homosexuality and Literature (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008) pp 152–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52. Furbank, above n 20, p 318.

53. Sneddon, KJ ‘A rhetorical analysis of the genre of wills’ (2011) 29 Quinnipiac Law Review 665.Google Scholar

54. Evidence of this is a deposit to the National Archives made by the firm in 1979 of extensive papers relating to the Thorntons, the maternal family of Forster's father: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=088-iv104%26cid=0#0

55. Establishing ‘current worth’ is complex. These figures are based on calculators provided at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency/ and http://www.measuringworth.com

56. King notes that Forster would write out a cheque to a friend ‘in order that he should do what was best for himself, not what pleased him most’.King, , above n 19, p 106.Google Scholar See alsoMunby, Anl ‘Forster's library’ in Stape, , above n 51, pp 155–156.Google Scholar

57. Forster, , above n 29, pp 291–292.Google Scholar

58. Furbank, , above n 20, p 316.Google Scholar

59. Boadway, R,Chamberlain, E andEmmerson, C Taxation of Wealth and Wealth Transfers: Appendices (‘Mirrlees Review’) (London: Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2011) pp 1–2. For a commentary at the time of Forster's death,Google Scholar seeSandford, C ‘Death duties’ (1971) 42 Political Quarterly 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60. But note that Wilkinson suggests that because the beneficiary of the life interest in the residue died soon after Forster, resulting in double death duties, his will (the contents of which he does not refer to), ‘from a lawyer's point of view was not a satisfactory one’.Wilkinson, , above n 51, p 177.Google Scholar

61. In other words, that ‘findings’ and attempts at meaning-making are contingent on the perspective and lens through which one reads. SeeWatkins, D ‘The (literal) death of the author and the silencing of the testator's voice’ (2012) 24 Law and Literature 59.Google Scholar

62. SeeMartin, RE andPiggford, G ‘Introduction’ in Martin, and Piggford, , above n 26;Google Scholar Singh, A ‘Reorienting Forster: intimacy and Islamic space’ (2007) 49 Criticism 35;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Reed, C ‘The mouse that roared: creating a queer Forster’ in Martin, and Piggford, , above n 26, pp 75–88.Google Scholar

63. Bredbeck, GW ‘“Queer superstitions”: Forster, Carpenter and the illusion of (sexual) identity’ in Martin, and Piggford, , above n 26, p 55 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

64. On the ‘haunting’ power of a figure from the past, seeGordon, AF Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1997).Google Scholar

65. Finch, above n 41, p 14. Finch's study of place in Forster's fiction and non-fiction makes no reference to his will.

66. Furbank, above n 20, p 202.

67. Ibid, p 199.

68. Ibid, p 200.

69. Ibid, pp 200–204 and 264–268.

70. SeeEllen, EW ‘Em Forster's Greenwood’ (1976) 5 Journal of Modern Literature 89;Google Scholar Nadel, IB ‘Moments in the Greenwood: Maurice in context’ inBradshaw, D (ed) The Cambridge Companion to EM Forster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) pp 177–190.Google Scholar

71. Grant, K ‘Maurice as fantasy’, in Bradshaw, , above n 70, p 202.Google Scholar

72. Finch, above n 41, p 5. On how films of his novels have reinforced this view, see Hutchings, PJ ‘A disconnected view: Forster, modernity and film’ in Tambling, , above n 34, p 229.Google Scholar

73. Finch, above n 41, p 207.

74. Ibid, p 208

75. Ibid, p 127.

76. Abinger Roughs: Piney Copse, Acquisitions up to December 2011, National Trust, p 42.

77. Furbank, n 20 above, p 202.

78. See Furbank on the ‘sorting and reading and giving away and sending to jumble sales’ necessitated by the move. Ibid, p 266.

79. Finch, n 41 above, p 303. Symbolically his rooms had been those of Nathaniel Webb, an influential teacher of his. Stone, W The Cave and the Mountain: A Study of EM Forster (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966) pp 67–71.Google Scholar

80. Bristow, above n 50; Finch, above n 41, p 302; Moffat, above n 9, pp 52–56.

81. Bristow, above n 50, p 115.

82. Finch, above n 41, p 402.

83. Forster, EM, Commonplace Book (1929, pp 49–50), quoted inGoogle Scholar Bristow, above n 50, p 119.

84. Bristow, n 50 above, p 119.

85. Forster, EM Arctic Summer (London: Hesperus Press, published posthumously 2003) p 132, quoted inGoogle Scholar Bristow, above n 50, p 126. In the Terminal Note to Maurice, Forster states explicitly that ‘Clive is Cambridge’ (September 1960, p 218).

86. For example,Scott, Pjm comments that: ‘EM Forster's life makes dreary reading … walled by his sexual inversion into an existence of much loneliness and misery [he] spent most of his 1911/2 years basically marking time’. EM Forster: Our Permanent Contemporary (London: Vision Press, 1984) p 9.Google Scholar

87. By way of contrast, his lifetime gift to the Homosexual Law Reform Society remained hidden from the public. Wilkinson, above n 51, p 177.

88. King, above n 19, p 93.

89. Finch, above n 41, p 402.

90. Ibid.

91. Furbank, above n 20, p 295. For a discussion of the theme of friendship in his novels, see Bharucha R ‘Forster's friends’ in Tambling, above n 34, p 115.

92. Stone, above n 79, p 61.

93. Moffat, above n 9, p 201.

94. Johanson, SM andBay, KF ‘Estate planning for the client with Aids’ (1989) Texas Bar Journal 217.Google Scholar

95. Forster, above n 21, p 64 (emphasis added).

96. Roseneil, S ‘Why we should care about friends: an argument for queering the care imaginary in social policy’ (2004) 3 Social Policy and Society 409;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Weeks, J,Heaphy, B andDonovan, C Same Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments (London: Routledge, 2001) pp 51–76;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Nardi, P, ‘That's what friends are for: friends as family in the Gay and Lesbian community’, inPlummer, K (ed) Modern Homosexualities: Fragments of Lesbian and Gay Experience (London: Routledge, 1992);Google Scholar Weston, K Families We Choose (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997).Google Scholar

97. Eekelaar, J Family Law and Personal Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) p 44.Google Scholar

98. Ibid, and Lind, C ‘Power and the taking of responsibility: shifting the legal family from marriage to friendship’ inLind, C,Keating, H andBridgeman, J Taking Responsibility: Law and the Changing Family (Farnham: Ashgate, 2010);Google Scholar Diduck, A ‘Shifting familiarity’ (2005) 58 Current Legal Problems 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

99. Bray, Alan's towering study similarly identifies wills for this purpose, as well as revealing other public ways in which this has been achieved: The Friend (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2003) pp 111, 114–115 and 281.Google Scholar

100. See Zeikowitz, above n 51, pp 152–153, for a letter that reveals a private arrangement between Forster, Isherwood and Sprott concerning the income from the US royalties for Maurice.SeeBray (above n 99, p 114) on the traditional connection between ‘Sworn Brothers’ and executors.

101. Moffat, above n 9, p 317

102. Ibid, p 319. About Furbank,Finch (above n 41, p 303) observes: ‘A Kingsman and Apostle, his narrative is one of an insider.’

103. Forster, above n 21, p 52.

104. See eg Lodge D ‘Introduction’, ibid, pp xviii.

105. See Taylor Y (ed) Special issue on ‘Sexuality and Class’ (2011) 14 Sexualities.

106. For an analysis of the way law is complicit in the silencing of class in the context of education, seeMonk, D ‘Parental responsibility and education: taking the long view’ inProbert, R,Herring, J andGilmour, S (eds) Parental Responsibility (Oxford: Hart, 2009) pp 143–164.Google Scholar

107. See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fuck%20buddy

108. Moffatt, above n 9, p 217. See also Stape, above n 41, p 88, for a reference to their meeting in 1924.

109. Moffat, above n 9, p 302.

110. Ibid, p 208.

111. Ibid, p 201.

112. Ibid, p 209.

113. Kermode, F Concerning EM Forster (London: Phoenix, 2010) p 114.Google Scholar

114. Cook, M (ed) A Gay History of Britain: Love and Sex between Men since the Middle Ages (Oxford: Greenwood, 2007) p 161;Google Scholar Houlbrook, M Queer London: Perils and Pleasures in the Sexual Metropolis, 1918–57 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2005) p 173.Google Scholar

115. Martin, R ‘Edward Carpenter and the double structure of Maurice ’ in Tambling, , above n 34, pp 100–114 (Martin paper first published (1983) 8 Journal of Homosexuality 35).Google Scholar

116. Moffat, above n 9, p 219.

117. SeeHeaphy, B ‘Gay identities and the culture of class’ (2011) 14 Sexualities 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

118. For example, Furbank makes no mention of Palmer, and Lovett is only mentioned in a footnote and described simply as the friend of Sprott. Furbank, above n 20, p 283 n 1.

119. Beauman, N Morgan: A Biography of EM Forster (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1993) pp 356–357.Google Scholar

120. Ibid, p viii.

121. Moffat, above n 9, pp 297–299.

122. Ibid, p 322.

123. A town called Halstead exists just over ten miles from Cambridge.

124. Light, A Mrs Woolf and the Servants: The Hidden Heart of Domestic Service (London: Penguin Fig Tree, 2007) p xv1.Google Scholar

125. Virginia Woolf bequeathed £10 to her cook Nelly Boxall, and Leonard Woolf subsequently a far more generous bequest of £8,000 to their cook-housekeeper Louise Everest. Ibid, p 304. His will was the subject of a bitter dispute between his family and his subsequent partner, whose affidavit Light notes ‘reads like a Victorian novel’. Ibid, p 304. However, the dispute did not concern this gift. See alsoLafler, , above n 12;Google Scholar Whittle above n 1.

126. Fineman, MA ‘The vulnerable subject: anchoring equality in the human condition’ (2008) 20 Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 1.Google Scholar

127. Furbank, above n 20, p 320.

128. Light, above n 124, p 295.

129. Will, TS Elizabethan Manchester (Manchester: University of Manchester, 1980) p 98.Google Scholar See alsoMcKee, S ‘Households in fourteenth century Venetian Crete’ inNeed, C (ed) Medieval Families: Perspectives on Marriage, Household and Children (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004) p 372.Google Scholar

130. Chilcot v Bromley [1806] 12 Ves 114; Herbert v Reid [1810] 16 Ves 481; Howard v Wilson [1832] 4 Hag Ecc 107.

131. Light, above n 124, p 313.

132. Glasgow Herald 17 February 1954. He bequeathed £500 each to his cook and housemaid.

133. ‘Why did this decadent peer leave his millions to his manservant?’ Daily Mail 20 June 2011.

134. Cox, R The Servant Problem: Paid Domestic Work in a Global Economy (London: IB Tauris, 2006).Google Scholar

135. While care per se creates no grounds for a claim on an estate, the reliance on care from non-family members and with it the possibility for dependency and accusations of undue influence, increasingly forms the basis of inheritance disputes. Hartog, H Someday All This Will Be Yours: A History of Inheritance and Old Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Horton, above n 16.

136. See family trees in Beauman, above n 119, and Furbank, above n 20.

137. Beauman, above n 119, p 351.

138. Moffat, above n 9, p 322.

139. Ibid, p 238.

140. Ibid.

141. Furbank notes that he gave them £10,000 in 1964 and after his godson's death in 1962 paid a monthly allowance to his widow. Furbank, above n 20, p 316.

142. Martin, above n 26, at 255.

143. Ibid, at 273.

144. Forster also gave his godson the antique nursery table of his great aunt Marianne Thornton; according toBuckingham, May: ‘The continuity pleased him however vague it may seem to others.’Das, G K andBeer, J EM Forster: A Human Exploration: Centenary Essays (London: Macmillan, 1979) p 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

145. Moffat, above n 9, pp 44, 65 and 115.

146. Martin, above n 26, at 264.

147. Bristow, above n 50.

148. Summers, CJ EM Forster (New York: Ungar, 1983) p 72.Google Scholar

149. Freeman, E Time Binds: Queer Temporalities, Queer Histories (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010) pp 19 and 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For alternative critical engagements with the ‘the child’, seeOberstein, K Lesnik On Having an Own Child: Reproductive Technologies and the Cultural Construction of Childhood (London: Karnac, 2008) andGoogle Scholar Edelman, L No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

150. Freeman, above n 149, p 21.

151. Halberstam, above n 37, pp 2 and 5.

152. Sedgwick, EK ‘Tales of the avunculate: the importance of being earnest’ in Tendencies (London: Routledge, 1994) p 59. Sedgwick defines uncles as: ‘a whole range of men who might form a relation to a younger man (as patron, friend, literal uncle, godfather, adoptive father, sugar daddy)’ and notes that the move from ‘kinship’ to ‘family’ is ‘avuncularsuppresive’.Google Scholar Ibid, pp 59 and 62. See also Bray's reference to the will of a godmother. Bray, above, n 99, p 281.

153. Letter to Malcom Darling 12 August 1910, inLago, MM andFurbank, PN (eds) Letters of EM Forster Vol 1 (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1984) pp 110–111. Forster declined to take on the role, partly as an atheist, but also because of the ‘emptiness of my own experience’ with his own ‘official god parents’.Google Scholar Ibid, p 114.

154. Counter, above n 4. See alsoCleere, E Avuncularism: Capitalism, Patriarchy and Nineteenth Century English Culture (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004) p 21.Google Scholar

155. Counter, above n 4, p 102.

156. ‘Em Forster bequest to King's ’ The Times 10 November 1970 at 1.

157. His obituary in The Times, written by William Plomer and published four months earlier, makes no mention of it, despite the fact that its existence was well known to him.

158. Including his posthumously published collection of short stories (The Life to Come and Other Stories, 1972).

159. This reading is lent weight by the inclusion of the Terminal Note written in 1960 and reinforced by his portrait or handwriting sometimes being used for the cover. See eg the London Penguin edition of 1972.

160. Scott, above n 86, p 135. Similarly,Gillie, C describes it as ‘not worth publication … a personal release’ in A Preface to Forster (Harlow: Longman, 1983) p 128.Google Scholar For similar responses, see Kermode, above n 112, p 80 and Ozick and Steiner in Martin and Piggford, above n 26.

161. Da Silva, above n 35.

162. Moffat, above n 9, p 316.

163. Martin, above n 115.

164. Moffat, above n 9, p 304. See alsoLane, C ‘Betrayal and its consolations in Maurice, “Arthur Snatchfold” and “What Does It Matter? A Morality”’ in Martin, and Piggford, , above n 26. At one point, mirroring his relationship with Buckingham, he considered revising Maurice with Alec Scudder getting married.Google Scholar Moffat, above n 9, p 232.

165. Forster, above n 21, p 176. See also Stephen's comment in the novel: ‘all one's thoughts can't belong to any single person … you can't own people. At least a fellow can't’. Ibid, p 271.

166. Lane, above n 164, at 189.

167. Trilling, L EM Forster: A Study (London: Hogarth Press, 1967) p 14.Google Scholar

168. Cook, above n 114, and Houlbrook, above n 114, pp 264–271.

169. SeeAuchmuty, R ‘Same-sex marriage revised: feminist critique and legal strategy’ (2004) 14 Feminism and Psychology 101Google Scholar; Barker, N Not the Marrying Kind: Feminist Critiques of Same-sex Marriage (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012) andCrossRefGoogle Scholar Joshi, Y ‘Respectable queerness’ (2012) 43 Columbia Human Rights Law Review 415.Google Scholar

170. Kitzinger, C ‘Lesbian and Gay psychology’ inFox, D andPrilleltensky, I (eds) Critical Psychology (London: Sage, 1997).Google Scholar

171. Heaphy, B ‘The sociology of Lesbian and Gay reflexivity or reflexive sociology?’ (2008) 13 Sociological Research Online, available at http://www.socresonline.org.uk/13/1/9.html CrossRefGoogle Scholar

172. Beck, U andBeck-Gernsheim, E Individualization (London: Sage, 2002);Google Scholar Giddens, A The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).Google Scholar

173. See Taylor, above n 105, and amieson, LJ ‘Intimacy transformed? a critical look at the “pure relationship”’ (1999) 33 Sociology 477.Google Scholar

174. Forster, above n 29, p 264.

175. Smart, C, Personal Life (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007) p 189.Google Scholar

176. Hacker, above n 16, and Gordon, above n 16.

177. Horton, above n 16.

178. Mathien, T andWright, DG (eds) Autobiography as Philosophy (London: Routledge, 2006) p 14.Google Scholar

179. Ibid, p 6. See alsoGass, WH ‘The art of self: autobiography in an age of narcissism’ (1994) Harpers 43 at 51, who defines life writing as ‘a progressive history of its narrator's current orientation in moral space’.Google Scholar

180. Klinenberg, E Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone (New York: Penguin, 2012);Google Scholar Reynolds, J andWetherell, M ‘The discursive climate of singleness: the consequences for women's negotiation of a single identity’ (2003) 13 Feminism and Psychology 489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

181. Finch etal, above n 7, p 181.