D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Virgil]

You know, I have no idea! His ideal woman, to me, seems to change from novel to novel; but maybe, I am wrong. To be honest with you, I think Lawrence was always in pursuit of what his ideal woman should be; but like his journeys for discovery, he never truly settled on a complete answer.

After thinking about that for a while, I would have to agree. Possibly Ursula is his most defined ideal woman, and she's in both The Rainbow and Women In Love. And while she's no push over, she stands her ground, she's not exactly a strong feminist either. In fact she sort of rejects that. The other women characters are all interesting in their own way. Mrs. Morel (too strong) and Miriam (too weak) from Sons and Lovers are both problematic; Anna Brangwen (Ursula's and Gudrun's mother) from The Rainbow is incredibly drawn and complex, but ultimately similar to Mrs Morel, an all absorbing woman that reduces the vitality of men; Lady Chatterly could be the best representative of Lawrence's ideal woman after Ursula.

I think that Lawrence definitely does not write weak women. He writes them prominent and strong, asside from certain characters.

He doesn't, but the question is, does he approve?

I do think Lawrence felt that the natural order of things in the world, derrived from observing nature itself, was that male animal/man is dominent over female animal/women. I don't however, think he believed that man was there to bully women either or visa versa. Lawrence was very complex and to answer what his 'ideal' woman was, is to study him for a lifetime. I really don't have a certain answer myself.

Quite right. Lawrence is the ultimate naturalist and that's where he believes in a more deferential role for women. I'm not sure "deferential" is the right word. I couldn't think of the perfect word. And in a perfect lawrence world there wouldn't be a need for bullying. It would be natural, the male acting through his role and the female through hers. To some degree lawrence sees the imperfect roles of men and women as a falling from some edenic ideal. When we fell from eden (and this is Lawrence's view, not mine) we formed individual wills and through those wills we exert our internal desires and this creates interrelationship disharmonies, and ultimately social disharmonies. These disharmonies work themself out with time and conflict in premodern societies, but the modern world (industrialization, freedom, especially women's freedoms, democracy) does not allow these disharmonies to work themself out but lead to sterile and dysfunctionality relationships and societies.

[Janine]

NEW TEXT is post #3030 - falls now on the page prior to this one.


I will answer your post tomorrow, Virgil. It's a good one and interesting to debate this with you. I think mostly now we are in agreement. Well written post, V!

[jinjang]

Ursula is the name of Gudrun's sister, by the way. It wasn't Jane. You are thinking maybe, of Jane Eyre?

I just threw a name because I compared the two sisters with the two sisters in Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austin. Gudrun with Elizabeth and Ursula with Jane.

Lawrence is the ultimate naturalist and that's where he believes in a more deferential role for women. I'm not sure "deferential" is the right word. I couldn't think of the perfect word. And in a perfect lawrence world there wouldn't be a need for bullying. It would be natural, the male acting through his role and the female through hers.

That is fascinating! I really appreciate your expertise on Lawrence. I may have to reread Women in Love because that book puzzled me in many ways. Now I could understand what Rupert, close to Lawrence himself, was trying to reach with Ursula in their love. While Ursula may have been an ideal woman for Lawrence, I, as a woman, found Gudrun far more intriguing and charming and so was Gerald compared to Rupert. Seemingly irrelevant to our current story, your insight will definitely help me understand what Lawrence is trying to convey to us with our story of discussion. Now I understand what you mean by

Certainly the mother here is a two dimensional character and not fully fleshed out.

You mean to say that the mother in the story is definitely obscure for us to determine whether she fits into Lawrence’s ideal woman.

To some degree lawrence sees the imperfect roles of men and women as a falling from some edenic ideal. When we fell from eden (and this is Lawrence's view, not mine) we formed individual wills and through those wills we exert our internal desires and this creates interrelationship disharmonies, and ultimately social disharmonies. These disharmonies work themself out with time and conflict in premodern societies, but the modern world (industrialization, freedom, especially women's freedoms, democracy) does not allow these disharmonies to work themself out but lead to sterile and dysfunctionality relationships and societies.

If Lawrence is right on the disharmony between men and women, the only solution would be not to have any marriages at all. The marriage is a byproduct of our modern world and one of the causes of dysfunctional relationship. Many a lucky couples are in harmony while many others are not. Let me quote from a book A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

Women in Indian society were treated so well as to startle the Spaniards. Las Casas describes sex relations: Marriage laws are non-existent: men and women alike choose their mates and leave them as they please, without offense, jealousy or anger. They multiply in great abundance; pregnant women work to the last minutes and give birth almost painlessly; up the next day, they bathe in the river and are as clean and healthy as before giving birth. If they tire of their men, they give themselves abortions with herbs that force stillbirths, covering their shameful parts with leaves or cotton cloth; although on the whole, Indian men and women look upon total nakedness with as much casualness as we look upon a man’s head or at his hands.

The “dysfunction” could happen also if a couple is not attracted to each other or if love in the relationship is lopsided. If a man and a woman want to live in a harmony with nature as a husband and wife, we have to assume there is also the mutual attraction between the couple.

This certainly does not seem to be the case with Maggie and Alfred. I conclude firmly that Maggie is not attractive either to the narrator or to her husband. There were many negative indications the narrator noticed each time Maggie trying to bewitch the narrator. Let me list them here: preposterously short skirt (though contemporary men would not mind the short skirt); odd smile; long sallow face; impudent(applied to cows but induced after Maggie’s sudden appearance) ; she looked straight into my face and I wanted to turn my face away; her look was too near; she asked abruptly; laughed with slightly ugly grimace; I was being cajoled (negative connotation); black bitter-looking; she looked at me shrewdly(negative); (after he returned with Joey) she attended to me with a kind of sinister witch-like graciousness; ominous hulking bearing; and so on…

The negative things about Alfred are a lot more prominent, though he may be handsome, which we all established without any disaccords.

How to prevent such dysfunctional couple? We should not marry or only lucky few couples should marry. Lawrence was an idealist himself, I surmise.

Note for everyone:

NEW TEXT is post #3030 - falls now on the page prior to this one.

[Sapphire]

The last part of the text is up. I'll have a look at it later in the day - I am a bit too busy at the moment.

I do have to say that I read these ideas about what Lawrence thinks to be the ideal woman with great interest. I am a bit ashamed to admit that I never thought about the possibility to distil such an idea from the characters in the story he wrote
But then again, I have always difficulty with the whole concept of "ideal (wo)man". I know I definitely can not describe mine. I would not be surprised if Lawrence changed his idea every now and then - or at least developed it over the years (and books).

One learns a little every day

[Virgil]

That is fascinating! I really appreciate your expertise on Lawrence. I may have to reread Women in Love because that book puzzled me in many ways. Now I could understand what Rupert, close to Lawrence himself, was trying to reach with Ursula in their love.

My pleasure. However there is much more to Lawrence than that. I didn't mention the religious aspect of nature and of sex itself, the sub conscious as a harbor of unconscious impulses and desires, and the social order dependent on natural relationships and spiritual connection. Oh, there's probably more than that too. It's not coming to mind. What makes Lawrence special for me is that he's worked out this unique view of the world and it's derivative of Wodsworth and the Romantics in many respects, but updated to modernity. He could be seen as the last true Romantic writer. He's not just a great writer, but he's unique.

While Ursula may have been an ideal woman for Lawrence, I, as a woman, found Gudrun far more intriguing and charming and so was Gerald compared to Rupert. Seemingly irrelevant to our current story, your insight will definitely help me understand what Lawrence is trying to convey to us with our story of discussion. Now I understand what you mean by
You mean to say that the mother in the story is definitely obscure for us to determine whether she fits into Lawrence’s ideal woman.

Yes, she's only got a couple of sentences devoted to her, and we don't ever see what she thinks or feels. I think one is supposed to find Gudrun more charming and intriguing. She is. She's the ideal mondern woman by everyone else's standards, smart, sophisticated, strong, artist. Lawrence was a rebel against modernity and those (other than the artist) are not attributes he appreciates. His ideal characters are those that are slow to think and ponder. They feel.

If Lawrence is right on the disharmony between men and women, the only solution would be not to have any marriages at all. The marriage is a byproduct of our modern world and one of the causes of dysfunctional relationship. Many a lucky couples are in harmony while many others are not. Let me quote from a book A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

Lawrence would love that quote. When was that written? It's a idealization of the primitive, something Lawrence would agree with, but frankly I am personally skeptical of. We have this tendency to glorify the past. As to the marriage idea you present. I think part of Lawrence would go along with it and part would not. I think Lawrence would accept the notion of a natural marriage and in a natural society the natural integrates with cultural norms. He was much more intrigued with Catholicism (he spent a number of years living in Italy) than with his own Protestantism. He thought the rituals of Catholicism was closer to a natural religion and his later writings are filled with attempts to create new rituals for a new modern religion. His novel The Plumed Serpent is a perfect example. He felt the modern world had lost connection to the - how should I say? - the efficacy of the power behind the ritual. The best example of a perfect marriage in Lawrnce is the first generation of the Bragwens in The Rainbow. The Rainbow is a novel of three generations, ending with Ursula.

The “dysfunction” could happen also if a couple is not attracted to each other or if love in the relationship is lopsided. If a man and a woman want to live in a harmony with nature as a husband and wife, we have to assume there is also the mutual attraction between the couple.

For Lawrence all this happens sub consciously.

This certainly does not seem to be the case with Maggie and Alfred. I conclude firmly that Maggie is not attractive either to the narrator or to her husband. There were many negative indications the narrator noticed each time Maggie trying to bewitch the narrator. Let me list them here: preposterously short skirt (though contemporary men would not mind the short skirt); odd smile; long sallow face; impudent(applied to cows but induced after Maggie’s sudden appearance) ; she looked straight into my face and I wanted to turn my face away; her look was too near; she asked abruptly; laughed with slightly ugly grimace; I was being cajoled (negative connotation); black bitter-looking; she looked at me shrewdly(negative); (after he returned with Joey) she attended to me with a kind of sinister witch-like graciousness; ominous hulking bearing; and so on…

This is brilliant. Thanks for putting that together. I agree. There were many indications where I felt that Lawrence was not sympathetic to Maggie, but I never coherently idnetified it. But now you have.

How to prevent such dysfunctional couple? We should not marry or only lucky few couples should marry. Lawrence was an idealist himself, I surmise.

Yeah, I think Lawrence might agree with that, though he's never looked at the implications of a marriageless society. Something tells me he wouldn't like that either. But Lawrence in his self rightous way would consider himself one of those who is lucky. He was able to see problems in other people but never himself.

[Sapphire]

Here we go

The road made a loop down the sharp face of the slope. As I went crunching over the laborious snow I became aware of a figure striding down the steep scarp to intercept me. It was a man with his hands in front of him, half stuck in his breeches pockets, and his shoulders square--a real farmer of the hills; Alfred, of course.

Hands in his breeches pockets again What struck me about this is "a real farmer of the hills". Maggie already hinted that Alfred could have become anything - but wanted to be a farmer. I can't find it back, but I remember us talking about how Maggie is rooted in that house and Alfred just goes off to fight a war or drive in France - not really seeming to aspire anything, not a man with a plan. It seems like he's quite at ease in the hills. Thus why did he join up for the army ("he thought he'd like the life") and why did he become a driver?! To run away from Maggie? But was he already married to Maggie when he was a driver? ... Questions, questions... What sticks is that I did not think Alfred to be so at home in the hills, and this sentence changed my opinion on that matter.

He waited for me by the stone fence. 'Excuse me,' he said as I came up.
I came to a halt in front of him and looked into his sullen blue eyes. He had a certain odd haughtiness on his brows. But his blue eyes stared insolently at me.

Here my knowledge of the English language is failing: he has an haughtiness in his brows BUT his eyes stare insolently?! Isn't that the same thing: haughtiness and insolence meaning "disdainful". I do not understand the placement of "But"

'Do you know anything about a letter--in French--that my wife opened--a letter of mine--?' etc

This is the part from which I concluded that Alfred did not read the letter, Janine. Just like Maggie, he does not really like to ask the narrator for help, but they do recognize him as the only one who might be of any help - Maggie because he knows France, Alfred because apparently he knows the narrator spoke with Maggie (either from Maggie or his Dad).

At the same time, no doubt, he would like to wreak untold vengeance on my unfortunate person.

Untold vengeance. For what? Why? Maybe like BienVenu mentioned, a consequence of the war. He is struggling with himself and needs to let go of his feelings of anger, either on Joey or on the narrator...

So he eyed me, and I eyed him, and neither of us spoke. He did not want to repeat his request to me. And yet I only looked at him, and considered.

The narrator is really waiting for Alfred to draw the information out of him, isn't he? I mean, he must know what Alfred wants to know. He is either playing with Alfred or he is trying to decide on what to do next ("and considered") and how much he will tell the man. Will he lie again?

Suddenly he threw back his head and glanced down the valley. Then he changed his position--he was a horse-soldier. Then he looked at me confidentially.

That surprised me too. Alfred a horse-soldier. Somehow, I had pictured him a foot soldier. Not sure why, for they probably had a horse on the farm... I wonder though, why it is important. Does this help Alfred's status or not? I do not think the cavalry did much charges in WW1 - it being a trench warfare and such...

'She burnt the blasted thing before I saw it,' he said.
'Well,' I answered slowly, 'she doesn't know herself what was in it.'
He continued to watch me narrowly. I grinned to myself.
'I didn't like to read her out what there was in it,' I continued.

"I did not like to" - the narrator has definitely been meddling into affairs! He really points out his own doing in it all.

He suddenly flushed so that the veins in his neck stood out, and he stirred again uncomfortably.

Why did he flush? Out of shame for what was in the letter? He should!

'The Belgian girl said her baby had been born a week ago, and that they were going to call it Alfred,' I told him.
He met my eyes. I was grinning. He began to grin, too.
'Good luck to her,' he said.
'Best of luck,' said I.

Here they really start to get on my nerves. What are they grinning about like "good old chaps". What is the use of them bonding over such a thing?

'And what did you tell _her_?' he asked.
'That the baby belonged to the old mother--that it was brother to your girl, who was writing to you as a friend of the family.'
He stood smiling, with the long, subtle malice of a farmer.

Why is the typing like this: "_her_"? Does that mean Alfred paused at that word?
Again it is being said that Alfred is really a farmer. It's written all over him apparently.

'And did she take it in?' he asked.
'As much as she took anything else.'

Now, there is one way to put it. Alfred does not know how she took anything else, does he?

He stood grinning fixedly. Then he broke into a short laugh. 'Good for _her_' he exclaimed cryptically.

Still grinning, then laughing - shortly. And I agree that he's being quite cryptically in the last part. Not too sure who's "_her_" ...

And then he laughed aloud once more, evidently feeling he had won a big move in his contest with his wife.

There, now it is finally being said. Those two do act like they're in a contest instead of a marriage. One has to have the upper hand. This sentence shows a bit that the narrator sees this and it might be just in my reading it, but I do not think he does really approve of it. No real disapproval either though...

'What about the other woman?' I asked.

Just my thought, what about the other woman. A good question to ask and I'm glad the narrator does mingle in here by asking such.

'Who?' 'Élise.' 'Oh'--he shifted uneasily--'she was all right--' etc 'Not me,' he said. 'Back your life it's a plant.' etcHe laughed boisterously but uneasily. 'What did she say, exactly?' he asked.

It seems to me that Alfred is not at all sure. He tries to laugh of his affair and the fact that there's a baby. But he can not be easy about it all, he is not that non-caring. It might be he's uneasy about his own status, but this part does make me think he wonders about Eliza. Though the next part brings back doubts ... maybe he is only uneasy about himself ...

I began to repeat etc
'They know how to pitch you out a letter, those Belgian lasses.'
'Practice,' said I.
'They get plenty,' he said.
There was a pause.
'Oh, well,' he said. 'I've never got that letter, anyhow.'

What kind of reasoning is that?! Does that make it OK. I am sorry, but he got as much of that letter as if he would have really gotten it himself. I am sure the narrator gave him the drift of it, if not the exact words it was written in. He tries to talk himself out of his responsibilities - both towards himself as towards the narrator.

The wind blew fine and keen, in the sunshine, across the snow. I blew my nose and prepared to depart.

The wind and the narrator are blowing Sorry, that just struck me as funny. Not sure why. I wonder if the wind is there to blow the whole matter away? In the beginning of the story it was rather a messenger of (more) bad news, wasn't it?

'And _she_ doesn't know anything?' he continued, jerking his head up the hill in the direction of Tible. 'She knows nothing but what I've said--that is, if she really burnt the letter.'

Again that way of writing "_she_".
And I see now why you questioned whether Alfred saw the letter or not. I think maybe Maggie has hidden the thing somewhere, but I also think Alfred did not see it. Otherwise he would not have been so anxious to talk to the narrator about it, would he? Or maybe he would, to know what kind of impression he had made...

'I believe she burnt it,' he said, 'for spite. She's a little devil, she is. But I shall have it out with her.' His jaw was stubborn and sullen. Then suddenly he turned to me with a new note.

"Have it out with her". Does that mean there will be some more fights, or that he will work together with her to find a solution? That he will have his marriage out with her, live it till the end.

'Why?' he said. 'Why didn't you wring that b---- peacock's neck-that b---- Joey?' 'Why?' I said. 'What for?' 'I hate the brute,' he said. 'I had a shot at him--'

Brute? Joey a brute? What's brutal about that bird? That man has quite some anger issues...

I laughed. He stood and mused. 'Poor little Elise,' he murmured.

And back at Elise. He does make jumps in his mind...
Not sure why the narrator laughed - maybe there is just no other respond to it. I mean, it is easy to say now that I would have confronted him about going after an innocent bird, but I did not see Alfred face. Maybe it was very mad/scary/determined...

'Was she small--_petite_?' I asked. He jerked up his head.
'No,' he said. 'Rather tall.' 'Taller than your wife, I suppose.'

Ok, why is this important? Are they talking about height or how "worn out" the women are?! Sorry, but if it is all about sex this part is quite distasteful in my eyes But then again, I know quite a few people nowdays might ask about that... and not as subtile as camouflaging it with "height" ...

Again he looked into my eyes.

Again? Where was the first time... And is this to see what the narrator thinks about it all?

And then once more he went into a loud burst of laughter that made the still, snow-deserted valley clap again. 'God, it's a knockout!' he said, thoroughly amused.

Right... And I say that in a very sarcastic manner! What a joke... He has quite an interesting sense of humour...

Then he stood at ease, one foot out, his hands in his breeches pockets, in front of him, his head thrown back, a handsome figure of a man. 'But I'll do that blasted Joey in--' he mused.

Maybe he is called handsome to make it even more absurd that he could feel threatened by a bird like Joey?!

I ran down the hill, shouting with laughter.

Ow great, now everybody has gone mad

Well, that is all I have to say now A bit much, I know... I think I am starting to finally grasp the text, I just have no way of putting it into words yet

[Janine]

Oh my gosh Virgil, I am laughing my head off! I am sorry about those words - like _she_ and _her_ . That happened when I pasted the story from online into my offline program - it didn't pick up the formating, which would have shown the word in italics. It should read her and she. It's not some kind of cryptic code invented by Lawrence. It's my own mistake in transporting it from online to this site.


I will be back later to answer posts. I read them all.

Virgil, I think you are really stretching it on your comments about petite and height - come on now. I don't think there is anything nasty about that at all. If anything I think the horseman reference and the height of the women is a 'power' image. I think he is showing that Elise is powerful while actually Maggie is not. The bird might just be adorable with Maggie and a brute with Alfred. Ever get peeked by a peacock? I had a pet white domestic goose once, who lived on our pond but came to visit me often much like Joey does to Maggie and he loved women; he would actually seek out my mother and then he would act so cute with us, he's gently peck at us or just walk around squawking his fool head off; but let a man come anywhere near him, and he went into instant defense mode and turned into a sort of brute, as well. He lowered his long neck and went on the attack; it was quite sight to behold. He changed like night and day. He knew men were a threat, apparently; women were gentler with him so he was fine with that. I do think these animals know. They are smarter than man gives them credit for.

[Sapphire]

Janine, I think you are giving Virgil a hard time for something he did not do I like your idea better indeed - the "power" that comes from height. I just could not figure out why on earth it could be important and my mind started to wander If I read my post again, I think it wandered way too far!
I should have known though, as I just saw a program on "why girls wear high heels". The power-factor is quite a big factor. As is the "I feel sexier" by the way .

And animals might know, for birds are always coming at me. And I can't stand them

[Janine]

Janine, I think you are giving Virgil a hard time for something he did not do I like your idea better indeed - the "power" that comes from height. I just could not figure out why on earth it could be important and my mind started to wander If I read my post again, I think it wandered way too far!
I should have known though, as I just saw a program on "why girls wear high heels". The power-factor is quite a big factor. As is the "I feel sexier" by the way .

And animals might know, for birds are always coming at me. And I can't stand them

Birds do know as other animals do as well. I know for a fact that if one acted afraid of my goose he would go into attack or defensive mode and come at you; he would not have been able to hurt anyone seriously but a lot of people got upset and they could fall down. Once I showed fear and he lowered his head and came towards me; then I realised if I just took my hand and knocked him on the top of his peak he knew who had the upperhand and did not go on the attack again. It got to the point where he was glad for me to stroke his long elegant neck and pat his back. It was quite a revelation to me at the time but then it got to be second nature with me and he and I felt quite unafraid of him and comfortable with him following me around my garden. He was really something, walking about so proud and parading himself just like a peacock.

Oh my gosh! Sorry, Virgil, I got your and Saphire's post mixed up. Naturally, the way our Virgil thinks I thought he pointed to the tall factor as something a bit sorid. Haha...jokes on me. Saphire the underscores are just a fluke in the formating - nothing that Lawrence is trying to make us wonder about, however he did italize the words for more emphasis. The her and she is Maggie I believe.

It's really hot here today; I may have to take a break tonight. I am sweating and the computer is making more heat; I still do not have the AC in the window. I should shut down for a few hours, and watch a movie or something tonight early evening. Maybe it will get cooler later on. Like I said, I did read all of your posts.

Let me suggest a few things to you all concerning getting to know Lawrence better and his way of thinking. I hold that a good biography book on the author would be invaluable to your understanding of his position on husbands, wives, children, morals, religion, etc. I have read several now and will suggest some to you later on. These really shed a great deal of light on his work for me. Also, there is a commentary book which I will list with the others.

[BienvenuJDC]

Sorry, guys. But y'all post entirely too much for me to keep up...

[Janine]

Sorry, guys. But y'all post entirely too much for me to keep up...

I know it. It's a bit overwhelming for me too, Bien. I did read all of the posts but don't quite know where to begin. It will have to wait till later. It is too hot here. I am going to shut computer down for awhile. Thought cooler air was coming this way.

[Virgil]

I am completely confused????? Huh??

[Janine]

I am completely confused????? Huh??

Forget it. I mixed you up with Saphire's comments in her post. Sorry 'bout that! I can't address your post right now. I think I am going to keel over from this heat and humidity. I sure hope it gets a little cooler tonight. I am suffocating in South Jersey....

[jinjang]

Lawrence would love that quote. When was that written? It's a idealization of the primitive, something Lawrence would agree with, but frankly I am personally skeptical of.

Bartolome de las Casas wrote that around 1530. I do not think the life of Indians is practical to our times. But, I agree with his view: A man and a woman love each other in harmony with nature, sharing responsibilities and taking their roles within their capabilities.

Here my knowledge of the English language is failing: he has an haughtiness in his brows BUT his eyes stare insolently?! Isn't that the same thing: haughtiness and insolence meaning "disdainful". I do not understand the placement of "But"

I think the word “but” is applied to his blue eyes: I looked into his sullen blue eyes but his blue eyes stared insolently at me.

My interpretation is a bit different from Sapphire's and so I am writing my version without quoting Sapphire's but I read and appreciated all of hers.

At the same time, no doubt, he would like to wreak untold vengeance on my unfortunate person.

My interpretation: Alfred may have been thinking that the narrator was conspiring with Maggie against him by translating the letter for her and thus revealing his secret to his wife. He has been also brooding over the letter with which Maggie has been taunting him. Hence the untold vengeance.

He nodded slightly. He seemed to be meditating as to what line of action he should take. He wanted to know the contents of the letter: he must know: and therefore he must ask me, for evidently his wife had taunted him. At the same time, no doubt, he would like to wreak untold vengeance on my unfortunate person. So he eyed me, and I eyed him, and neither of us spoke. He did not want to repeat his request to me. And yet I only looked at him, and considered.

I consider this part as their initial adjustment and understanding stage. Except the initial adjustment between the two men, I noticed that they ease into conversation without much puzzlement in the narrator. The narrator reads Alfred like a book while Maggie remains mystery. This conversation simply means the narrator can understand Alfred as a man to a man.

Then he looked at me confidentially.

Observe how easily Alfred confides to the narrator after a short exchange of words and after an eye-to-eye comprehension. Right after Alfred’s confidential talk to the narrator, the narrator says the following:

'Well,' I answered slowly, 'she doesn't know herself what was in it.'
He continued to watch me narrowly. I grinned to myself. 'I didn't like to read her out what there was in it,' I continued.
He suddenly flushed so that the veins in his neck stood out, and he stirred again uncomfortably. '

As if to say that your secret is safe from Maggie. The narrator confesses that he personally didn’t like to read it outright what was truly in the letter to Maggie. Here Alfred flushed uncomfortably because a stranger knows his secret. But they grinned at each other soon.

And then he laughed aloud once more, evidently feeling he had won a big move in his contest with his wife.

The narrator says that Alfred laughs with evident triumph over the fight with Maggie. Notice also Alfred is transparent to the narrator unlike Maggie. This also supports my version how he would revenge his humiliation of two days.

'What about the other woman?' I asked.
'Who?' 'Élise.' 'Oh'--he shifted uneasily--'she was all right--'
'You'll be getting back to her,' I said.
He looked at me. Then he made a grimace with his mouth.
'Not me,' he said. 'Back your life it's a plant.'

Alfred does not like to get investigated by the narrator and he feels shame for his infidelity. But, by saying “Back your life it’s a plant,” he expresses he will stay put and possibly no more tom-foolery. His youthful wandering life is over and will settle down for good. But, he will get the dominance back soon enough by getting rid of Joey. Joey can be a dual symbol for dominance if not manhood here.

'They know how to pitch you out a letter, those Belgian lasses.'
'Practice,' said I.
'They get plenty,' he said.
There was a pause.
'Oh, well,' he said. 'I've never got that letter, anyhow.'

Maybe Alfred is saying Elise is a loose woman or at least he thinks she was in order to justify his action. But later on Alfred says “Poor little Elise.” I cannot make out what he means. He may mean he regrets to leave Elise for devilish spiteful wife Maggie. Does he regret her beauty? He would have all the pretty women if he could. Alpha males!

'And she doesn't know anything?' he continued, jerking his head up the hill in the direction of Tible. 'She knows nothing but what I've said--that is, if she really burnt the letter.'
'I believe she burnt it,' he said, 'for spite. She's a little devil, she is. But I shall have it out with her.' His jaw was stubborn and sullen.

Alfred has now the upper hand to fight with Maggie with the confidence that she does not have a solid proof of his wrongdoing. She has been taunting him for two days over the letter and he couldn’t obviously fight back and he must have borne her reproaches with sullen silence. Men like Alfred do not like to lose his face to their wives. Virgil’s dominance version comes to true right here.

'I hate the brute,' he said. 'I had a shot at him--'
I laughed. He stood and mused.

Joey was acting like a spoiled child, occupying Maggie’s attention. Maggie used Joey to annoy Alfred. He will definitely try to get rid of the nuisance. The whole things can be viewed laughable to the narrator who is now out of their business. He may be laughing with Alfred and at him at the same time.

My husband said I should give a grand finale with a recipe of peacock dish. I do not agree with him, of course. I certainly go against killing someone's pet, even though farmers have peacocks and peahens as poultry.

[Sapphire]

JinJang
I like your ideas
I think you might be right about the "but" - it definitely makes more sense.
And I do think Alfred could have been thinking that the narrator was conspiring with Maggie - why not? If he is though, I think he's staying quite calm under the idea that Maggie might be confining in somebody else and maybe even cheat on him.
As you say, the narrator can understand Alfred as a man to a man. Maggie stays a mystery. I had not looked at it like that yet but indeed - maybe it is not as much approval as understanding. Though those two are hard to separate sometimes.

His youthful wandering life is over and will settle down for good.

Yes! I was thinking in that direction but could not quite point it out. I think that might be why in this part so much attention is given to the fact that Albert is a farmer in his whole being. To show he might have accepted that is what his live is gonna be like. Especially as he has the upper hand now He "just" needs to eliminate the (imagined?) competition.

Peacock Dish. Now there is an idea