Talk:Vita Sackville-West

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Narrowly a B. Inline citations should be next, and continued improvement on keeping her romances written in a neutral & encyclopedic tone.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 18:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian & bisexual

Reverted this anon edit, which removed the 'Lesbian writers' category with justification 'cannot be lesbian and bisexual at the same time'.

Points against that:

• The categories don't claim it was at the same time; VSW's orientation might have shifted during her life.
• Both 'lesbian' and 'bisexual' have several different usages, and some of these do in fact overlap; see fuzziness at Sexual_orientation#Classification_and_boundaries. VSW falls into the overlap; while she married a man and had a child, she seems to have been predominantly oriented towards women after that.
• Presumably as a result of the above, both these categories are defined on a "notable writers who identify, or who have been identified, as X" basis. Googling shows plenty of examples of VSW being identified as a lesbian, and quite a few more of her being identified as a bisexual (in fact, narrowing the search to '+"vita sackville-west" +"X writer"' produces a lot more support for 'lesbian' than 'bisexual'.) She clearly fits the definitions offered for both categories; if those definitions are faulty, that should be resolved on their Talk pages rather than here.

--Calair 22:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien Reference

"The Hobbit" page seems to claim that the Sackville Baggins functioned as a "comical allusion to Vita Sackville-West, who had been involved in a sensational court case over an English estate in the decade before The Hobbit was written."

There is no back link here.

I just got here from the Hobbit article and wanted to know more about the "sensational court case". To my dismay this article has no mention of the case, and is instead filled to the brim with gosip about the author's sexuality. Yes, her sexuality is an important part of her life, but she is famous as an author, not as a lesbian. How about some more weight given to her works, rather than her romances. L0b0t 13:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Here, [User L0b0t|L0b0t], is a link. It does seem to fit the sensational court case issue. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/jul/10/inheritance-knole-sackvilles-seymour-review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.49.80 (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I imagine she's famous as a lesbian to other lesbians; LGBT history has claims to notability, too. But I would like to know more about the court case (if the Tolkien reference is accurate), and her romances and scandals have to be presented dispassionately (i.e. neutrality & encyclopedic tone).

Looks like that's covered below... -- Yamara 18:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

She's not a freakin lesbian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.207.68 (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This semantic stuff is just a bunch of fluff. People sleep with whomever they want to sleep with, if all parties are in agreement. Of the two nominal lesbians who slept with me when I was younger, one had been straight for nearly twenty years then switched to lesbian then back to me, making her bisexual, I suppose. It is all what the woman claims to be at the moment. The other one had always been a lesbian and thanked me for converting her to bisexual, which was healthier. VSW is new to me. I just wound up here after discovering that we are distant cousins. I am descended from the 11th Baron De La Warr (but not the 12th, who was the coolest one). Then the line of Wests become earls, marry the Sackvilles and after a couple of generations in which the Earls De La Warr were Sackville-Wests, a group of brothers go off, one as a West, one as a Sackville (the new Earl) and several as more Sackville-Wests. I think Vita could equally be called bisexual and lesbian, but toward the end of the article there is a mention of a menage a trois, which would suggest that bisexual was the better description. . The scandal level here is amazing. Vita's most famous woman lover was probably Virginia Woolf, but there seemed to be more love with Violet Trefusis. Then it turns out that Violet's mom was one of Edward VII's mistresses and that her husband knew to make himself scarce whenever his sovereign came by to shag his wife. Meanwhile, there is some question about who Violet's father was, and the family feels that her real biological father was yet another nobleman. It is nice to note that the titular head of the Church of England set such a good example on how to follow the Ten Commandments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.49.80 (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"Passionate affair with Virginia Woolf" is distinctly hyperbole. They went away for the weekend and Virginia Woolf's biographer's say they did nothing more than snuggle. Vita's latest biographer claims she had an aversion to physical contact of any kind. More interesting would be her relationship with her siblings, legitimate and illegitimate. Mballen (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Woolf's Autobiography

Also, I've read Virginia Woolf's autobiography "A Writer's Diary" and I don't recall a reference to Vita S-W among the socialites she mentions, though I was mostly concerned with her writing of "The Waves". If Vita is mentioned there, would it be worth noting here?

I found my copy and checked the index. Vita hedges, Vita praises, present company included all writers suck, Vita is Sappho, Vita gets a sex change, and Vita snaps Virginia out of one of her fits. The quote concerning Orlando might be suitable for inclusion in the main text.

She's mentioned as Sackville-West in an entry from 4 June 1923 about a walk around a garden.

1 June 1925 she records that "Vita was a little doubtful" about the fate of either/both of "Mrs Daloway" | "The Common Reader" both recently published.

11 May 1927 she reports that "Vita praises" her recently published "To the Lighthouse".

In the next published entry 18 June 1927 she reports meeting Vita at the Hawthornden as a "horrid showup" of "chattering writers" whose "business of writing became infinitely distasteful".

30 June 1927 she reports that she was "smoking a cigar" and that Vita (with H[arold] sleeping curled up with his head on Vita's knee) "looked like Sappho by Leighton, alseep; ..." (more index citations follow nearby, some skipped).

5 October 1927 she records "And instantly the usual exciting devices enter my mind: a biography beginning in the year 1500 and continuing to the present day, called "Orlando": Vita; only with a change about from one sex to the other.

16 February 1930 she reports that in the aftermath of finishing "The Waves" that again "Once or twice I have felt that odd whirr of wings in the head" and that she doubts she can "write to any purpose" as "A cloud swims in my head." ... "Something happens in my mind. It refuses to go on registering." ... "Then something springs. Two nights ago Vita was here; and when she went I began to feel the quality of the evening - how it was spring coming; ..."

More literary description, less gossip

Sackville-West is more important for her writing than for her lifestyle. I think that the description of her writing should be expanded. For instance, it is unfair that her most important novel, The Edwardians, is mentioned only in a single phrase while the article goes on paragraph after paragraph about the author's lesbian affairs.--19 June 06

Here here. All of the Bloomsbury group articles suffer from the same speculation about sexuality, affairs and marriages, based on salacious gossip, to the extent of overlooking the literary and artistic work which made the individuals noteworthy. Yallery Brown 21:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. She's listed as an author and poet, but the article is almost exclusively devoted to her sex life. I'm sure that if she were alive today, she'd be disgusted that her work -- her writings and gardening -- has (apparently) been almost completely forgotten. At the very least, post a couple of photos of covers of her books and her gardens. VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

with that in mind I had to remove the following as it is unecessary, salacious and irrelevant. I can't think of any heterosexual relationship being described in this way Ophelia105 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Both Trefusis and Sackville-West are described as being attractive women, with Sackville-West being the dominant of the two.

Discussion of Vita in article on Violet Trefusis

The relationship between Vita and Violet Trefusis is also discussed in the article about Trefusis. However, some passages seem to have not entirely neutral wording, especially this one:

An essential difference between Mrs Keppel and Vita seems to be that Mrs Keppel made a trade of never distressing her lovers (and their marriages), thus advancing her family socially and financially, while Vita caused broken hearts more than once: for her marriage was rather the refuge she could always come back to after periods of abandonment.

To me, this wording seems to be somewhat judgemental. Also, it is common sense not to attribute the "fault" for the end of a relationship between adults to only one person. Could someone with deeper knowledge on both women address this issue, and describe exactly what happenend without any judgement ?

By the way, on an earlier paragraph in that article, Trefusis is reported to show traits of lesbianism. Wouldn't it be more correct to say that she was bisexual ?

kind regards,

Joise (from the German WP)

Major edits in order

I am a graduate student in English who has written an MA dissertation on Vita Sackville-West and Violet Trefusis, and I see several major issues with this article which I would like (if there are no serious objects) to address through edits. First of all, I agree that the information on Sackville-West's literary works needs to be expanded (though I have no particular objection to the "gossip", since VSW's social life certainly impacted her work). For one thing, the bibliography mentions no works written after the mid-40s -- VSW continued writing until her death in 1962.

Secondly, there are fairly serious errors (on both this page and the article on Trefusis) in the description of this very important episode in VSW's life. For instance, the affair did not begin until 1918, when both women were in their late 20s; it did not end because VSW was seeing other women; et cetera. I am basing this on repeated readings of texts such as Nigel Nicolson's Portrait of a Marriage, Trefusis' letters to VSW, the various biographies of VSW and Trefusis, Virginia Woolf's collected Diary and Correspondance, and so forth. I feel this section needs significant rewriting but did not want to move ahead on that without posting.

Thirdly, there are also misleading statements about the affair with Woolf. This affair had lasting repercussions in the lives of both VSW and Woolf and as such deserves (IMHO) serious treatment. Evelyn Irons is mentioned as another liason, which seems fine, but Mary Campbell (wife of poet Roy Campbell really should be discussed, since VSW's liason with her significantly impacted the lives of both Woolf and R. Campbell (among others).

I don't want to spam further - but I wanted to post in case anyone had objections to my correcting/expanding the article. Always already 22:43, 2 November 2006

That would be great. One thing you'd need to be careful of is previously-unpublished synthesis or interpretation (even if those are built on published sources) - see WP:OR for discussion of this - but attention and expansion by knowledgeable people is very welcome. Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates might be useful to you here. --Calair 00:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Have at it. Content aside, the article requires significant editorial re-working. — Nat (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vitaswest.JPG

Image:Vitaswest.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rosamund Grosvenor

Please note that unsourced information cannot be included in Wikipedia articles. Please add only material for which you can cite a reliable source. dfg (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Affair With Virginia Woolf: Much Ado About Nothing

According to Vita's son Nigel Nicolson (*Portrait of A Marriage*), the physical component of her famous affair with Virginia Woolf consisted of exactly two occasions when they went to bed together.Even then, they may have just engaged in "bundling". Vita told her son she was aware of Woolf's extreme emotional fragility and did not want to cause her a mental breakdown with a tempestuously sexual affair.

The truly important component of their friendship seems to have been the fact that they enjoyed each other's company, as is documented numerous times in Woolf's journals. According to Virginia Woolf's nephew, who wrote a biography of her, she also appreciated Vita's aristocratic birth and connections. (Woolf was something of a snob.) Younggoldchip (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure it was her son she told that to? I checked Portrait of a Marriage on open library and I found that info in a letter to her husband Harold, not Nigel although I could have missed it. I couldn't find anything about bundling, though. (Further up this talk page, it says that according to Virginia's biographer -which one?- they did nothing more than snuggle, corroborated in this article https://www.makingqueerhistory.com/articles/2017/1/11/virginia-woolf-struggling-and-never-being-perfect).Hermione Lee says that Vita may have been playing their physical relationship down to reassure Harold that she wouldn't leave him like she did for Violet, especially as her intense letters to Woolf seem to belie her insistence to Harold that she loved Virginia, but wasn't in love with her. Also, the letter to Harold was written in 1926, more stuff could have happened between them after that. Nigel Nicolson says of the affair with Woolf 'it is a travesty of their relationship to call it an affair'and that the physical element was tentative and not very successful, but he arguably plays down his mother's lesbian affairs to emphasise the his parents' loving, if unfaithful, marriage. Vita wanted Portrait of a Marriage to be about her affair with Violet and be called Portrait of a Lesbian Relationship, but Nigel changed the emphasis to her relationship with his father, unsuprisingly. One article I read says that lines in Virginia and Vita's letters that may allude to sex are crossed out. Furthermore, in her article Lighting the Cave, Louise de Salvo says that the word Potto is code for ' the sexual experiences they had shared' and that for the first time in her maturity Woolf was able to 'enter into an erotic relationship' and Victoria L Smith says in this article here https://ph.news.yahoo.com/know-virginia-woolfs-love-affair-110051656.html that the relationship was 'very passionate and very sexual even though initially their sexual relationship was downplayed and even ignored' The sources are contradictory, so there shouldn't be a definite statement of 'it was not very sexual' or'it was very sexual'. 188.29.228.13 (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Quentin Bell, later recalled: "There may have been - on balance I think that there probably was - some caressing, some bedding together. But whatever may have occurred between them of this nature, I doubt very much whether it was of a kind to excite Virginia or to satisfy Vita. As far as Virginia's life is concerned the point is of no great importance; what was, to her, important was the extent to which she was emotionally involved, the degree to which she was in love. One cannot give a straight answer to such questions but, if the test of passions be blindness, then her affections were not very deeply engaged." 188.29.17.218 (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

also apparently 'Not a peaceful evening' and symbols in Vita's diary indicate intimacy in November 1925 94.197.148.160 (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Leslie Stephen Pic?

Why on Earth did we have a pic of Leslie Stephen next to the paragraph about Vita SW and Virginia Woolf? Surely we should have a pic of Virginia (preferably one with Vita) or nothing, rather than Stephen, when there is no direct connection between L Stephen and Vita.

I have replaced it with the wikicommons pic of Virginia. IceDragon64 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Title

Rather pedantic perhaps, but she was the Hon. Vita Sackville-West by virtue of being the daughter of a peer. The impression in the first sentence is that the "Hon" arose from her husband's knighthood. IXIA (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Lord

I have had to make many corrections to this article. I can't understand why someone would write it while having such a lack of knowledge of the subject (and indeed the English language). For example the Lords Sackville are barons not baronets (the latter being in effect an hereditary knighthood entitling the holder to carry the title 'Sir' and to append 'bt' - or in the past 'bart' - to his name). Knole is not called 'Knole House', simply 'Knole' and is near, not in, Sevenoaks. V S-W's mother was not 'Lady Victoria Sackville' she was Lady Sackville. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winehoff (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Polyamorous?

There is a discussion as to whether Ms. Sackville-West belongs in List of polyamorists and Category:Polyamorous people at Category talk:Polyamorous people#Category and list. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

'Strong marriage'?

The lead contains this term in reference to V.S.-W. and H.Nicolson. I wonder if it's appropriate. Wouldn't 'open' be a much more accurate (albeit somewhat anachronistic) term? Bazuz (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It's sort of a judgement, which strikes me as not quite appropriate. But they lived together, corresponded constantly, and remain married until death, despite frequent affairs. The sentence now reads "she was famous for her exuberant aristocratic life, her strong marriage (she and her husband Harold Nicolson were both bisexual), her passionate affair with novelist Virginia Woolf, and Sissinghurst Castle Garden, which she and Nicolson created at Sissinghurst." I don't think "open" is right as a substitution here. She's not notable because she had an open marriage; she's notable because the marriage was strong.Flyte35 (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, what is your definition of 'strong marriage'? Bazuz (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I do not think that 'open marriage' is a judgement in this case. Check out it's definition in wikipedia - "Open marriage typically refers to a marriage in which the partners agree that each may engage in extramarital sexual relationships, without this being regarded as infidelity." Sounds like factual description to me. Whereas 'strong marriage' is rather judgmental, I'd say. Bazuz (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

??"She's not notable because she had an open marriage; she's notable because the marriage was strong."??

Sorry, but I cannot see this statement as accurate. Vita Sackville-West is famous for particular reasons that are exclusive of an (anonymous Wikipedia) editor's subjective valuation of her marriage; and she would still be notable--for those same reasons--if her marriage was judged a disaster by a different editor.

If a happy appraisal of her marriage is relevant here--it's not, IMO--an independent and credible source should be supplied; one who makes the case that the 'strength' of her marriage is integral to her notability. Otherwise, the current phrasing should be changed--to something encyclopedic and non-opinionated.--Jbeans (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So how about removing the marriage from the lead? Will it do the trick? Bazuz (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly; or probably; or some treatment of it as what-is-now-known-as an open marriage---but not that she was famous for it. First, though, I would like to hear from Flyte35, who I hope will reply here.--Jbeans (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Recommend something like like "She was known for her exuberant aristocratic life, her passionate affair with novelist Virginia Woolf, and Sissinghurst Castle Garden, which she and her husband, Harold Nicolson, created at Sissinghurst." They actually were famous for the strength of the marriage but both "fame" and "strong" are such ambiguous words in this sense that it's probably best to avoid. An independent and credible source wouldn't fix the problem.Flyte35 (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds just about right to me. Bazuz (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree; pls proceed Flyte35. (I appreciate working with you both.)--Jbeans (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Blue Plaque and Vita Sackville-West's grave

The following was removed from the article by another user: "An English Heritage plaque on their house in Ebury Street, London SW1, commemorates both Sackville-West and Harold Nicolson. Her cremated remains were placed in the Sackville family vault at Withyham Parish Church in East Sussex". http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=10367559&PIpi=1858815. Feel free to add it again. Cyan22 (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The bare link provided is just a picture of the grave. It does not indicate anything about an English Heritage plaque on a house in Ebury Street. It also does not indicate that Sackville-West's ashes are in a family vault and that the vault is at Withyham Parish Church in East Sussex. Flyte35 (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Inheritance

The text notes that Knole was bequeathed by V. Sackville-West's father to "his nephew Charles, who became the 4th Baron." However, Charles Sackville-West (1870-1962) was Lionel Sackville-West's brother, not his nephew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Death Bredon (talk • contribs) 09:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edits

I think the article is far too long at 75kb, filled with a great many direct quotes and tangential detail, not directly about her life or writing. According to WP:LENGTH we should aiming for 30-50kb to make it readable. WP does not encourage a lot of direct quoting as it's regarded as not encyclopedic. See WP:LONGQUOTE. Accordingly I'd like to edit the sections on Violet, Persia and Virginia accordingly, reducing them significantly re quotes and non-essential details about flags, light bulbs, candle sticks, brickwork etc. I know it's wonderfully tempting, when reading a biography, to add in all the little details and long quotes where the subject seems to speak from the heart, but we need to keep things concise and encyclopedic. This is looking like a pretty thorough article these days - too much obsessed with sexual dalliances, but increasingly balanced out with aspects of the rest of VSW's life. Some assiduous cutting would help it greatly. Anna (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Sissinghurst

The section on Sissinghurst contains two statements that I think are inaccurate. The first is that "her father had disinherited her from Knole and a title". It was primogeniture, rather than her father, that made Vita ineligible. The second is in the first two sentences of the final paragraph, about relinquishing claims on Sissinghurst breaking her heart. Here, the author has mixed up Knole and Sissinghurst. The Vita quote is referring to the former, not the later, which didn't go to the Trust until 1966/7, years after Vita's death, Knole going in 1948. I'll amend in a while if there are no objections. KJP1 (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. Changes made. I think both errors were long standing mix ups in the article from before 2017. Good to fix them. Anna (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

List of wartime cross-dressers

Is there any source for this Category? It is certainly true that Vita cross-dressed, but I'm not aware that she did so in wartime or, if she did, that it's being wartime was the reason for her cross-dressing. KJP1 (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of dates

In 1914, she had a passionate affair with historian Geoffrey Scott. Scott's marriage collapsed shortly thereafter...

But Geoffrey Scott's wiki page says:

The Scotts divorced in 1926, and she remarried (to Percy Lubbock) the same year. With little in the way of career, it has been suggested that an unlikely love affair with Vita Sackville-West from 1923 to 1925 spurred Scott into his later literary production. Valetude (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

she did really have Romany ancestry, it wasn't invented -and the jstor article says she really had it, so has been cited wrongly

Pepita's Wikipedia page says she was half gypsy via her mother, so Vita, her granddaughter, was one-eighth gypsy.The jstor article says her gypsy heritage was 'alleged', but then that Vita was 'conscious of her own gypsy blood', and called Pepita in her biography of her 'half gypsy and half aristocrat'. It then says the 'Sackville-Wests' gypsy descent was a topic of popular knowledge', and that Violet, Vita's lover, would reference it to Vita. Violet, and probably Vita, wrote love letters partly in Romany. Rosamund Grosvenor would call Vita 'Carmen', and Geoffrey Scott called her 'my gypsy'. Virginia Woolf was interested in it and referenced it in Orlando. .

Pepita could have lied about her mother being a gypsy - her Spanish dancer contemporary, Carolina 'la belle' Otero, falsely claimed to have a gypsy mother to get publicity - France was obsessed with Spain at the point Otero and Pepita became famous, and exoticised Spanish gypsies as passionate and sexual - see Bizet and Merimee's Carmen. But there doesn't seem to be hard evidence that she did lie. 92.40.1.80 (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)