The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

We made it! And some of you made it again! I still have about twenty pages to read, but I'd like to open up the discussion thread a little early. I know many of us have other projects we're moving on to, but hopefully everyone finds some time to share their thoughts and questions about the book.

I also hope we're not all so exhausted from reading that we lack the energy to discuss the novel. I'd like to dig deep into the text, but let me start off with a surface question. Were convents really used as prisons for young women in the late 1800s? I feel bad for Pansy. Apparently Isabel does too. How would the story have concluded if Pansy were a stronger woman? Of if she were so weak as to elicit contempt rather pity?

Thanks again Jeremy. What a journey!

In writing about Pansy's incarceration James may have been drawing on an earlier tradition regarding convents. Most Italian convents were closed by Napoleon but in James time the Sant'Antonio in Polesine, Ferrara, just outside Florence, was still operating as a nunnery. It was originally a thriving Benedictine convent for noblewomen because five hundred years ago, Florence, like all other Italian cities, 'was so nervous about female sexuality that as soon as respectable women reached the age of menstruation they were either married off or - more likely, given how expensive dowries were at this time - incarcerated in convents. "Christ is the only son-in-law who doesn't cause me any trouble," wrote the great Ferrarese Renaissance patron Isabella d'Este, after walling up two of her own daughters for safety'.

Convents were integral to the extended family life of the nobility. Girls of good pedigree took their religious vows as a matter of course having been placed in convents by their nearest and dearest, who preferred to pay the relatively modest joining fees of the cloister rather than the steeply inflated dowries required under Florentine marriage law.

'The girls themselves seem to have been largely compliant: the enclosed life offered a reasonably attractive lifestyle, combining a large measure of personal autonomy with a living environment at an agreeable level of comfort. If they had the means, they could even follow the latest fashions in their dress and domestic furnishings.'

In Virgins of Venice Mary Laven has written about the convents of Venice in the 16th and 17th centuries:-

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASI...

'Basing her vividly told story on scrupulously scholarly study of the Venetian archives, Laven provides the reader with astonishingly fresh, immediate insights into the fascinating reality of day-to-day convent existence. Frequently quoting directly from the convent records, what she tells us is a revelation. Venetian convents were filled with the daughters of the nobility: “Many of the nuns lacked a true calling to the religious life. The richer nuns paid for their cells to be elegantly furnished and served wine and sweetmeats to their sisters. They were also known to invite lovers."'

From the descriptions of Pansy's pleasant rooms at the convent James seems to infer that she is being treated like the noblewomen in earlier times and considering the restricted life she led with her father, and Isabel's unhappy life, she may well have been in the best place so it is perhaps a happy ending for her. In real life the woman James' based Pansy upon (see Background thread) ran away from her repressive father with her artist lover, lived a happy life but tragically, died young.

Interesting. Nuns inviting lovers back to their rooms. Apparently Pansy doesn't have that kind of freedom though. She can't even follow Isabel past a certain point in the convent.

Clearly this is a punishment for Pansy and an example of Osmond reminding her of his authority. Maybe you're right though - it's better to be in the minimum security prison of the convent than to be married off to the highest bidder. Of course the whole situation is hypocritical considering Merle and Osmond's relationship.

They weren't allowed out but life inside wasn't all that restrictive, which may be the case with Pansy. At the convent, in Chapter 52, Mdme Merle tells Isabel 'I stayed twenty minutes with Pansy; she has a charming little room, not in the least conventional, with a piano and flowers. She has arranged it delightfully; she has so much taste. Of course it's all none of my business, but I feel happier since I've seen her. She may even have a maid if she likes; but ofcourse she has no occasion to dress. She wears a little black frock; she looks so charming.'

I feel that James has 'saved' her.

Madge wrote: "I feel that James has 'saved' her...."

Hmm... I wondered if he sent Isabel, in her role as "lady," back to be Pansy's (benevolent step) mother.

Do we have any room in our hearts for Madame Merle who, because of the attitudes of the time towards unmarried mothers, had to give up her child but who did her best to see that she was comfortable in the convent and found her good stepmother? I do not feel she was a happy woman.

The last part was the most readable in my opinion, lots of things happen. I was happy that Pansy expressed an opinion for once in favoring Ned but then she gives him up to please her father.

So did Isabel really love Ralph all along, but never consider him because he was her cousin and an invalid? Those things certainly made him safe. Apparently she never realized till the end that he loved her. If she had, she probably would have stayed away from him as she did with the other admirers.

Isabel walking out reminds me of A Doll's House. But in her loyalty to Pansy she says she'll return. And what about her money? Didn't it all go to Osmond? Could women control their own money at the time? I didn't think so. Would he support her from afar to avoid scandal (kind of like Mrs. Touchett? Or would she live on what Ralph leaves her? Of course money was the cause of her problems in a way. Mme Merle and Osmond would have had no interest in her without it.

The 1882 Married Women's Property Act allowed women to keep their own money upon marriage so James started writing PoaL before that time although he made major revisions for the New York edition of 1908 which may have taken the Act into account..

James makes it clear that Isabel’s decisions are in no way influenced by money. In that respect she is indeed a more independent spirit than most of us.

But then: what did make her decide to return to Rome? Honor? That is, the feeling that freedom to make decisions comes with the moral obligation to accept the consequences of those decisions?

Whatever it is, her decision seems to emanate from a moral sentiment that has become difficult for us to understand. I wonder how James’ first readers felt about this.

Ralph certainly thought she was influenced by her inheritance and regretted persuading his father to give it to her. Without it she might have sought work and led a more useful, happier, freer life. Money ruined her.

She returned to Rome because James dare not offend the moral sensibilities of the time nor, in particular, his father who had written extensively on the indissolubility of marriage. Later in his career and after the death of his father he allowed his characters to divorce. In his 1908 revision he inserted Goodwood's passionate kiss and Isabel's emotional response to it which was presumably an acknowledgement of the changing sensibilities of his readers but it would be too much of a revision to insert a separation or divorce.

I do not believe Isabel returned to be a stepmother to Pansy because by then Pansy was a grown woman who, in any case, considered the nuns to be her '30 mothers' and said Isabel was her 'sister'.

Well, I finally finished the book. First, I'd like to thank everyone who participated in the conversation and made this a memorable experience. Second, I have to admit that my feelings about the book shifted radically by the end. The first few weeks were challenging. With respect to Paul, reading James felt like looking at the world through a dark glass. By the end of the novel everything seemed much clearer. I'm tempted to believe this is because I grew comfortable with James's style. I don't think this would be accurate though. I have to go back to something Wendel said - about the book becoming more conventional as it progressed. I think this is absolutely the case. In the early chapters I noticed many uses of meta-fiction and literary techniques that wouldn't be common for another thirty years. By the end of the novel there were almost no instances of meta-fiction. James continued to explore the psychology of his characters, but it's almost as if he began to consider his audience more. Generations raised on Dickens, Eliot, and Trollope weren't ready for a complete break with convention. The best way I can describe James is as a bridge between the 19th century and the Modern period. What makes him great may also be what makes him difficult or unpopular. He's too radical when compared to Dickens or Eliot and too conventional when compared to Woolf or Joyce.

Madge wrote: "Do we have any room in our hearts for Madame Merle who, because of the attitudes of the time towards unmarried mothers, had to give up her child but who did her best to see that she was comfortable..."

As a parent, I have sympathy for her. It must have been agonizing to stand just outside of Pansy's life with no way to be a meaningful part of it.

I also have some sympathy for Osmond too. (Cue The Rolling Stones's 'Sympathy for the Devil') It must be a lonely life to project your weaknesses on those closest to you.

Wendel wrote: "James makes it clear that Isabel’s decisions are in no way influenced by money. In that respect she is indeed a more independent spirit than most of us."

Maybe so, but even if Isabel doesn't base her decisions on her money, every aspect of her life is altered by it. To put it another way - she may not have acted based on her wealth, but other people did.

Picking up on the big question at the end of the book - why did Isabel return? - is it possible this is another example of her being afraid of overt male sexuality? It seems that a direct approach to Isabel will only repel her.

I do agree with you Jeremy as to how the novel changed from beginning to end and on how James would not have been popular with his contemporaries. I wonder how much of what we perceive as change was due to the 1908 revision?

James appears to have written PoaL with one hand tied behind his back because of his unwillingness to flout convention. There were hints of so many things; sexuality, affairs, decadence, but it was subterranean. The whole book 'could not speak its name' about so many things and used language as a subterfuge.

Isabel was afraid of sexuality in the same way that James was. He put her in the closet too so that her spirit became tamed and she lost the freedom she so desired. Only Henrietta broke the mould, became a New Woman, although she too married rather than remaining a free spirit. Henry James Sr, the Puritan and William James, the psychologist,were the hidden co-authors of this book IMO. I think it would be interesting for the group to read a book James wrote after this one to see if he was able to be his own person. The Bostonians was writtenin hid 'third phase' - does anyone fancy tackling that fairly soon whilst we still have PoaL in our heads?

Madge wrote: "...The Bostonians was written in his 'third phase' - does anyone fancy tackling that fairly soon whilst we still have PoaL in our heads?..."

I would be interested in the discussion, but probably more irritated by the book than by PoaL. IMHO, it isn't kind to either the women or the men it portrays -- not that such is a necessary attribute of a book. But, as Murakami said of Nakata in Kafka on the Shore, "Why did I create a character like him? It must be because I like him. It's a long novel, and the author has to have at least one character he loves unconditionally." Last (and first) time I read it, I didn't find such a character in The Bostonians. PoaL at least had several characters that I could genuinely like, albeit conditionally.

Do you have any other recommendations Lily?

Madge wrote: "Do you have any other recommendations Lily?"

Not really, Madge. The Golden Bowl and the The Ambassadors, considered two of the three masterpieces of his third period, are TBR for me, but I understand they are as difficult and cranky to read as The Wings of the Dove , which both just about did me in on James and provided my breakthrough read. At some point, I would like to go back and read at least one of those earlier novels NOT considered a masterpiece, like Roderick Hudson or perhaps The American or Daisy Miller and Other Stories or even What Maisie Knew. But I haven't read any of those and can't recommend well. Washington Square deals with a young woman's perhaps courageous, perhaps self-flagellating, escape from her father's tyranny. It is a fairly short and relatively straight-forward read set on the American side of the Atlantic.

Can you reach Chris and is he willing to comment? I know a year or so ago he was extensively reading James.

I hated Wings of a Dove and dropped out of that discussion:(

Washington Square sounds a possibility but is earlier than PoaL. What Maisie Knew was later (1897) and deals with divorce so might be better.

I haven't had a reply from Chris. I think he must be very busy.

Madge wrote: "I hated Wings of a Dove and dropped out of that discussion:(..."

Understandable. A troublesome book, more so than PoaL. That's why I wonder what I'll be getting into if/when I ever get to TGB or TA.

Thanks to Jeremy and everyone for their comments/insights which really helped with the reading of this book. I'm glad I have read it, although it is not one of my favourite books, and would be prepared to tackle another Henry James with the group in the future.

I loved the character of Henrietta and wish Isabel had had the courage to be more like her, but she wasn't and we have to live with the characters as James wrote them. I felt very sorry for Pansy as she will always be under the crual, restraining influence of Osmond.

I can see Madge's point about M Merle - in many ways she is a victim of Osmond as well. M Merle doesn't seem to have any monetary security of her own and relies of friends to support her mostly, so no wonder she gave up her child for a supposedly better life. Unfortunately Osmond wants to crush the independence of everything he 'owns' and because of society's values there is nothing M Merle can do about it.

I also felt sorry for Ralph. We found out on his death bed that he DID know that Isabel was desperately unhappy and that his interference in the will of his uncle was a major contributing factor. He died knowing there was nothing he could do to help the woman he loved.

I found Isabel's decision to return to Rome difficult to understand. I wish she'd run off with Goodwood, but I guess society's values and her own sense of what is 'right' must have made her return inevitable.

Great summary Helen, thanks. Henrietta was my favourite character. She had spunk:) Iwa disappointed in Isabel who started out with great promise but ended up just being a 'lady' which I suppose was James' intention all along.

I assumed that Isabel's return to Italy was indeed because of Pansy. She says to Pansy on leaving her at the convent, "I won't desert you," and promises to come back. I didn't think Osmond intended Pansy to become a nun, merely to be subdued into marrying whomever he wishes her to marry. Possibly Isabel may find some means of rescuing her.

It seems now that Pansy's immaturity may be explained by her being younger than we have supposed her to be. Countess Gemini says that she was born after the death of Osmond's first wife; presumably Osmond had to adjust the chronology of her birth to make it fit, so Pansy may actually be a year or two younger than everyone is led to believe.

In Chapter 22 when Pansy leaves the convent the nun says she is 15. If the novel spans, say 5 years, she will have been around 20 when Isabel went to England so not in need of looking after. Do you mean she was younger and that it was unreliable narration? Isabel was said by Mrs Touchett in that chapter to be 23.

Madge wrote: "Do you mean she was younger and that it was unreliable narration?"

Good question. Osmond must have falsified his daughter's age to some degree to make her date of birth tally with his wife's death; and James has merely reported her age as it is widely supposed to be. In a way this is unreliable narration, but no more than the other deliberate obscurities in the book.

True. She is presumably under the age of 21 for him to be able to put her back in the convent and she is also of marriageable age, although that could have been young in Italy of that time.

This must be the sexiest paragraph in the whole book (Chapter 55) and James added the kiss in 1908 when it was more acceptable to his public. Henrietta later counsels Goodwood to wait' so we can perhaps assume that he will return for Isabel in the future and they will run away together, perhaps taking Pansy and Rosier with them. After a few years with the cold Osmond Isabel might then appreciate Goodwood's 'hard manhood' and passion, which I feel she mistakes for aggression. But that would be another book because James was incapable of such passion and disliked 'macho' American men like Goodwood. So he consignede (imprisoned!) both Isabel and Pansy to loveless lives like his own:(:(:-

'He glared at her a moment through the dusk, and the next instant
she felt his arms about her and his lips on her own lips. His
kiss was like white lightning, a flash that spread, and spread
again, and stayed; and it was extraordinarily as if, while she
took it, she felt each thing in his hard manhood that had least
pleased her, each aggressive fact of his face, his figure, his
presence, justified of its intense identity and made one with
this act of possession. So had she heard of those wrecked and
under water following a train of images before they sink. But
when darkness returned she was free. She never looked about her;
she only darted from the spot...'

(I also think it is amusing that Goodwood's wealth comes from a mundane 'cotton factory' whereas the other men in the book have quite romantic ways of 'earning' money. Poor New World Goodwood can't compete with centuries of Old World loot but as Henrieta says, 'just wait'.)

That is good close reading, Emma. I thought the details concerning Pansy's birth and the timing of Osmond's relationship with Serene (why wait until the end of the novel to tell us her name?) were hazy. You're suggesting that when the narrator tells us Pansy is sixteen she may actually be as young as fourteen? Interesting. I'd feel better if we could move her age back about four years - a twelve year old who makes tea all the time is easier to accept than a sixteen year old who acts the same way.

Madge, the kiss was too scandalous for the original? Weren't there much racier works written before PoAL? I don't recall them being graphic, but there were definitely sex scenes in Tom Jones. And there was the rape scene in Tess. Anna Karenina? Madame Bovary? Who was James afraid of offending?

Madge wrote: "...But that would be another book because James was incapable of such passion and disliked 'macho' American men like Goodwood. ..."

Madge, I have a pretty strong sense of the evidence you might bring to support that statement, but I am not certain it is "true." My own sense of what I have read of his biographies and his work is that James had strong passions, but (Puritan) values that "forced" him to express them in hidden and convoluted ways. Did he dislike "macho" men -- well, that's a pretty blanket statement, given the diversity of men with whom he came in contact and was capable of interacting therewith. I am quite sure there were some of which one could make that comment with accuracy; still, I'm not quite ready to generalize. James was too complex a man for that IMHO.

Sidebar: I think of the contrast of how James treats the ambiguity of (Victorian) feminine sexuality versus Thomas Hardy -- somehow, it seems to me that James would have written a more sympathetic Sue Brideshead than Hardy, whose biographies speak of Hardy's frustrations with some of the women in his life. Yet, Hardy was very sympathetic with Tess, in a way that does not fit my perception of James. From each, according to their gifts and struggles.

This brief extract gives an idea of the sort of revision James made in 1908 and much of my reading confirms the extensive use of sexual innuendo that James used. He even kept notebooks of suitable 'sexy' words and names with double entendres.

https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/henry_j...

It wasn't just the kiss it was the whole paragraph he revised to make more explicit. Unfortunately the examples I found I can't copy and paste on my tablet.

Hardy ran into a lot of trouble with Tess but he intended to be provocative, as did Tolstoy. Hardy gave up writing because of the criticism he faced over his realistic portrayals of womens' lives. James may have been less willing to face such a firing line, especially while his father was alive - he died in 1882, a year after PoaL was finished although he did 'rebel' but cloaked that rebellion in wordy ambiguity.

Tom Jones was written when Britain was much 'bawdier'. Victorian life was more rigid and religious, partly due to Queen Victoria's influence.

http:/Lily: Like you I have read a lot of biographical material and what I have written has been culled from extracts from various biographies and critics. Unfortunately the Google book extracts cannot be copied and pasted by my tablet. James is frequently described as 'cold' and without sexual passion. He had made a decision to stay celibate and this influenced his character and his writing. He was said to dislike 'manly' men and to favour aesthetes. Aestheticism was a 'fashion' amongst homosexuals of this period. (cf Oscar Wilde & Aubrey Beardsley). What sexual affairs he had were late in life. Everything I have read about James shows him to be very repressed and given his upbringing that is not surprising. As a young man he supported his father's views on marriage and women but became more relaxed as he matured. At the time he wrote PoaL he was very much under the influence of both his father and his equally puritanical brother which is why I see them sitting on his shoulders like incubii.

This review of Henry James: Thwarted Love gives some insights into his sexuality:-

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mfs/summ...

Knowing what we now know of how such an upbringing as James' could damage a child and how repression of sexual activity can damage a man (or woman) I think it is difficult not to conclude that PoaL was affected by James' personal life and family background. I felt immensely sorry for him after reading a lot of biographical material but also came to see PoaL as flawed.

I do not think I could compare Hardy with James, they are so vastly different in style. Also, Hardy was an intentional social reformer whereas James wrote social commentary and that was so full of ambiguity that I get the feeling that he was afraid to speak out, which Hardy wasn't. Hardy was also critical of religious mores whereas James went along with them. Which reminds me to ask you if you think the 'straight path' that Isabel took after being kissed by Goodwood was a reference to Jesus' saying in Matthew 7:14: 'Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.'

Re above:

'James Sr. emphasized the role of suffering, submission, and rebirth in human life, and he insisted on a conservative view of marriage and the difference between the sexes. "Woman," he preached, was not truly a person but a "form of personal affection," and her mission was to redeem man from his natural egotism and brutality.'

This is what James said in response to criticism of PoaL's ending:

'The obvious criticism…will be that it is not finished—that I have not seen the heroine to the end of her situation…This is both true and false. The whole of anything is never told; you can only take what groups together. What I have done has that unity—it groups together. It is complete in itself—and the rest may be taken up or not, later. (The Notebooks of Henry James)'

And an interesting blog about the ending with which we may sympathise:

http://elliotsreading.blogspot.co.uk/...

Madge wrote: "...an interesting blog about the ending with which we may sympathise:

http://elliotsreading.blogspot.co.uk/... ..."

And that's only one way of reading the story -- valid though it may be. For me, one of the richnesses of PoaL is that there are multiple ways of reading it. That is why I am curious about your assertion @32 of PoaL as flawed -- any more or less than any great work of literature is "flawed" in some way or another.

Yet I will admit that I consider The Bostonians flawed for what I consider to be James's seemingly judgmental attitude towards particularly some of his female characters. I found that less blatant in PoaL -- they were each more simply, and complexly, who they were. James let us see them. To my mind, TB is a bit too sympathetic to a character who could be considered a virile Southern gentleman, but my modern sensibilities deems a bit of a cad. James was a product of himself, his family, and the time and cultures in which he lived. My perception is that he struggled with all of them -- and said to the world, take notice, look closely, in a society where flaunting in the face was viewed askew. Even vis-à-vis Emerson.

Flawed because I too found it not finished. A character who entered the pages with great promise is left to flounder and fail and I strongly feel this is because James dare not let her break her marriage vows. Other, braver authors were less conventional than this. Considering that he left America and his family behind and lived amongst unconventional people, I think he did not struggle enough. He should have been more Henrietta than Isabel:)

Flawed too because I feel he uses language to cloak what he does not have the courage to say, not because he was writing in a new style. He is like the religious philosophers who supposedly wrote about angels dancing on the head of a pin. Sorry, I know he is an American Great but after this and the even worse Wings of a Dove, I don't like his rubik cube way of writing:(

Madge wrote: "I don't like his rubik cube way of writing:( ..."

LOL!

Thx for responding!

:):) In the lack of an ending PoaL is like a modern anti-hero novel but there is not enough meat in the anti-heroism to make it believable. Isabel is no Yossarian.

I also did not feel I learned anything from Poal except how to write convoluted English. Wharton tells us so much more about the same sort of people and their surroundings.

Yossarian lives!

Madge wrote: ":):) In the lack of an ending PoaL is like a modern anti-hero novel but there is not enough meat in the anti-heroism to make it believable. Isabel is no Yossarian."

The romantics among us have Isabel taking care of Pansy's welfare, giving the flip to Osmund and Merle, and eventually finding happiness, even if it means going through some sort of legal rigmarole for divorce, with Goodwood -- then living on both sides of the Atlantic (until America delays entering WWI, per James own story?). Those with other perspectives can lay out other stories.

I would also quite like Isabel to take up a career like Henrietta, perhaps be 'bookish' again and open an antiquarian bookshop in the Charing Cross Road, sourcing books from all over the world, remaining a happy spinster, having the occasional secret affair....

Madge wrote: "I would also quite like Isabel to take up a career like Henrietta, perhaps be 'bookish' again and open an antiquarian bookshop in the Charing Cross Road, sourcing books from all over the world, rem..."

Is this why James left the ending open??? [g]

He does imply that it is an option in the quote above but by writing 'the whole of anything is never told' he seems to be saying 'tough luck' and illustrating his oft mentioned lack of regard for his readers. HE is the storyteller after all and readers PAY for him to tell the story well by buying his books

There are several articles by contemporary critics here, the first one by his close friend William Howells being apposite:-

http://www.bartleby.com/311/1001.html

Lily wrote: The romantics among us have Isabel taking care of Pansy's welfare, giving the flip to Osmund and Merle, and eventually finding happiness..."

Yep, that's me. But I'm not optimistic after reading Isabel's thoughts during her voyage to England: she saw "..the quick vague shadow of a long future. She should never escape; she should last to the end." Does this mean she will never escape Osmond, or that she will never escape the troubles of life with an early death like Ralph?

Incidentally, Mme Merle's announcement that she is going to America makes a satisfactory circle in terms of narrative shape, if not in terms of what it means for America. Innocence comes one way and corruption goes the other.

Emma wrote: "Incidentally, Mme Merle's announcement that she is going to America makes a satisfactory circle in terms of narrative shape, if not in terms of what it means for America. Innocence comes one way and corruption goes the other...."

Yes, but my sense was James was keenly aware of the corruption that existed in the Americas, particularly as made so manifest in the Civil War. That is far enough in the past for most of us that we don't think of it affecting social feelings, but it was as present to James as WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Afghanistan have been to succeeding generations. For him to explore "evil" as meddling in other people's lives seems almost as if he gave a bit of distance to intrinsic human relationships in order to sort of look at them closely. Wings of the Dove does that in even more convoluted ways than PoaL, but also more clearly ties in external pressures like class and poverty and dissolution.

Sidebar: Given PoaL, what would James think of modern stories of Jackpot/Lottery winners?

Has anyone seen the movie based on the book? It's not available on Amazon Prime and I don't want to buy it unless it offers a faithful, or at least interesting interpretation.

Here is a trailor Jeremy and a couple of clips. It looks as if they have made more of Isabel's 'lurv' scenes than James did:) I doubt any film can do justice to James' convolutions or Isabel's thought processes.

http://youtu.be/x9brMfU0OGU

http://youtu.be/3mz8Q2Fskbc

Thanks Madge. I'll check these out tonight. (Can't watch Youtube from my work computer).

Madge wrote: "Here is a trailor Jeremy and a couple of clips. It looks as if they have made more of Isabel's 'lurv' scenes than James did:) I doubt any film can do justice to James' convolutions or Isabel's tho..."

The second one doesn't look much like the book we read -- or maybe it does?

Jeremy -- does your library system have a film collection? (My rather large multi-location system seems to have only two accessible copies -- another is at a presently closed library.)

There is also a BBC 5 disc collection on Henry James that includes The Portrait of a Lady (Disk 2), along with several other James stories. The cast for The Portrait of a Lady is given as: Suzanne Neve, Edward Fox, Richard Chamberlain.

Details: (view spoiler)[
... The Henry James collection [ videorecording ( DVD widescreen)] / British Broadcasting Corporation. ... DVD , widescreen (enhanced) and full screen (1.33:1); Dolby Digital stereo., Dolby Digital mono., ... Disc 1. The American / produced by Fiona Finley ; writer, Michael Hastings ; directed by Paul Unwin (1998 ; ca. 84 min.) -- Disc 2. The portrait of a lady / produced by David Conroy ; adaptation by Jack Pulman ; ...
Publisher, Date: [England] : BBC Video ; [New York, NY] : Distributed by BBC Worldwide Americas ; Burbank, CA : Distributed by Warner Home Video, [2009]
Description: 5 videodiscs (ca. 858 min.) : sd., col. ; 4 3/4 in.
Summary: The American: American Christopher Newman is smart, educated and rich. He is a Civil War veteran and a self made tycoon who goes to Europe to see the 'treasures and entertain' himself. He meets Claire and after the fifth meeting he asks her to marry him.
Series: BBC Video classics
Language: English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing.
Performers: The American cast: Diana Rigg, Matthew Modine. — The portrait of a lady cast: Suzanne Neve, Edward Fox, Richard Chamberlain. — The spoils of Poynton cast: Gemma Jones, Ian Ogilvy, Diane Fletcher. — The wings of the dove cast: Elizabeth Spriggs, Betsy Blair, John Castle. — The golden bowl cast: Daniel Massey, Barry Morse, Cyril Cusack.
System Details: DVD, widescreen (enhanced) and full screen (1.33:1); Dolby Digital stereo., Dolby Digital mono., DVD5, DVD14, DVD9, NTSC.

(Someone in our system seems to have just requested the entire series (one copy available)! I'll probably keep an eye out for when it becomes available again sometime next year.) (hide spoiler)]

Great suggestion! I placed a hold on the 1996 version. I'll let everyone know how it compares to the book.