I’m more sympathetic to James’s experiment here than repulsed, though Grace Brissenden is right to call the narrator “crazy.” James retrospectively dismissed The Sacred Fount as a joke, and there’s a lot in that. But if it’s a joke it’s a morbid and haunting joke with a hideous moral at the bottom.
The narrator is “à plus forte raison,” a man whose habits of minute observation and analysis, and, above all, imaginative speculation, mark him as the emblematic writer and critic. On a weekend trip to an English country house, he is astonished to discover among his fellow guests a couple of his acquaintance, Guy and Grace Brissenden, that appear to have changed dramatically since he last saw them: although Grace is ten years older than her husband Guy (who used to have a “baby face”), she now appears uncannily young (about twenty) while her husband appears uncannily old (about sixty). To account for this seemingly reciprocal change, the narrator develops a theory that Grace is feeding off her husband, that she is drinking from the Sacred Fount of his personal resources, draining him of his life and all the while growing in youth and vivacity. The Sacred Fount is metaphorized as the sacrificial fixture through which one member in a relation gains energy from a second member at the second person’s expense. The person benefited by this exchange shines at such moment; they become “sublime.” The equation is summed up here by none other than Grace herself:
“‘Whenever two persons are so much mixed up … one of them always gets more out of it than the other. One of them—you know the saying—gives the lips, the other the cheek.’
‘It’s the deepest of all truths. Yet the cheek profits, too,’ I more prudently argued.
‘It profits most. It takes and keeps and uses all the lips give.’”
According to the synecdoche logic of Grace’s formulation, the lips are the more invested person in a relation, and therefore the most vulnerable and most willing to give. The cheek is the less invested person, who has the privilege of making use of the lips’ resources. In this way, Grace is rejuvenated by Guy’s youth, and Guy is aged in proportion. The narrator observes a similarly radical transformation in his fellow guest Gilbert Long, who, once a stupid Adonis, is now impressively clever, and becomes convinced that he is feeding off one of the women in the company’s cleverness in the way Grace is “feeding” of Guy’s youth. And here we have our mystery, the question which preoccupies our narrator for two-hundred pages of painstaking analysis: which of the women among the party is sacrificing her cleverness for Long’s sake? Who is Long’s sacred fount? The narrator exhausts unimaginable stores of ingenuity trying to ascertain who it might be, based exclusively on “psychologic evidence.” At times it becomes simply a game, an elaborate intellectual exercise based on the airiest data. In the end, the narrator manages to construct a “perfect palace of thought,” fitting everyone into his theory of reciprocal relationality, but Grace “spoils” it by revealing that Long is having an affair with Lady John, not May Server. Lady John isn’t at all “drained,” so this newly introduced evidence demolished the narrator’s extravagant theory.
As Blackmur notes and Follett before him, the novel becomes a parable for the maddening predicament of the writer and intellectual, who exhausts endless resources trying to capture reality as accurately as possible and is left, in the end, with designs that inevitably fail to capture something so intricate, ambiguous, and elusive. Like James, the narrator speculates ad nauseum about who is in possession of the real thing (love and sexual communion) because he himself, tragically, lacks it.