Norma has her hand up, is trying to catch the eye of the Dean of Humanities, who is chairing the session.
'Norma!' he whispers. Urgently he shakes his head. 'No!'
'Why?' she whispers back.
'Please,' he whispers: 'not here, not now!'
'There will be an extended discussion of our eminent guest's lecture on Friday at noon – you will see the details in your programme notes – but Ms Costello has kindly agreed to take one or two questions from the floor. So -?' The dean looks around brightly. 'Yes!' he says, recognizing someone behind them.
'I have a right!' whispers Norma into his ear.
'You have a right, just don't exercise it, it's not a good idea!' he whispers back.
'She can't just be allowed to get away with it! She's confused!'
'She's old, she's my mother. Please!'
Behind them someone is already speaking. He turns and sees a tall, bearded man. God knows, he thinks, why his mother ever agreed to field questions from the floor. She ought to know that public lectures draw kooks and crazies like flies to a corpse.
'What wasn't clear to me,' the man is saying, 'is what you are actually targeting. Are you saying we should close down the factory farms? Are you saying we should stop eating meat? Are you saying we should treat animals more humanely, kill them more humanely? Are you saying we should stop experiments on animals? Are you saying we should stop experiments with animals, even benign psychological experiments like Köhlers? Can you clarify? Thank you.'
Clarify. Not a kook at all. His mother could do with some clarity.
Standing before the microphone without her text before her, gripping the edges of the rostrum, his mother looks distinctly nervous. Not her métier, he thinks again: she should not be doing this.
'I was hoping not to have to enunciate principles,' his mother says. 'If principles are what you want to take away from this talk, I would have to respond, open your heart and listen to what your heart says.'
She seems to want to leave it there. The dean looks nonplussed. No doubt the questioner feels nonplussed too. He himself certainly does. Why can't she just come out and say what she wants to say?
As if recognizing the stir of dissatisfaction, his mother resumes. 'I have never been much interested in proscriptions, dietary or otherwise. Proscriptions, laws. I am more interested in what lies behind them. As for Köhlers experiments, I think he wrote a wonderful book, and the book wouldn't have been written if he hadn't thought he was a scientist conducting experiments with chimpanzees. But the book we read isn't the book he thought he was writing. I am reminded of something Montaigne said: We think we are playing with the cat, but how do we know that the cat isn't playing with us? I wish I could think the animals in our laboratories are playing with us. But alas, it isn't so.'
She falls silent. 'Does that answer your question?' asks the dean. The questioner gives a huge, expressive shrug and sits down.
There is still the dinner to get through. In half an hour the president is to host a dinner at the Faculty Club. Initially he and Norma had not been invited. Then, after it was discovered that Elizabeth Costello had a son at Appleton, they were added to the list. He suspects they will be out of place. They will certainly be the most junior, the lowliest. On the other hand, it may be a good thing for him to be present. He may be needed to keep the peace.
With grim interest he looks forward to seeing how the college will cope with the challenge of the menu. If today's distinguished lecturer were an Islamic cleric or a Jewish rabbi, they would presumably not serve pork. So are they, out of deference to vegetarianism, going to serve nut rissoles to everyone? Are her distinguished fellow guests going to have to fret through the evening, dreaming of the pastrami sandwich or the cold drumstick they will gobble down when they get home? Or will the wise minds of the college have recourse to the ambiguous fish, which has a backbone but does not breathe air or suckle its young?
The menu is, fortunately, not his responsibility. What he dreads is that, during a lull in the conversation, someone will come up with what he calls The Question – 'What led you, Mrs Costello, to become a vegetarian?' – and that she will then get on her high horse and produce what he and Norma call the Plutarch Response. After that it will be up to him and him alone to repair the damage.
The response in question comes from Plutarch's moral essays. His mother has it by heart; he can reproduce it only imperfectly. 'You ask me why I refuse to eat flesh. I, for my part, am astonished that you can put in your mouth the corpse of a dead animal, astonished that you do not find it nasty to chew hacked flesh and swallow the juices of death wounds.' Plutarch is a real conversation-stopper: it is the word juices that does it. Producing Plutarch is like throwing down a gauntlet; after that, there is no knowing what will happen.
He wishes his mother had not come. It is nice to see her again; it is nice that she should see her grandchildren; it is nice for her to get recognition; but the price he is paying and the price he stands to pay if the visit goes badly seem to him excessive. Why can she not be an ordinary old woman living an ordinary old woman's life? If she wants to open her heart to animals, why can't she stay home and open it to her cats?
His mother is seated at the middle of the table, opposite President Garrard. He is seated two places away; Norma is at the foot of the table. One place is empty – he wonders whose.
Ruth Orkin, from Psychology, is telling his mother about an experiment with a young chimpanzee reared as human. Asked to sort photographs into piles, the chimpanzee insisted on putting a picture of herself with the pictures of humans rather than with the pictures of other apes. 'One is so tempted to give the story a straightforward reading,' says Orkin – 'namely, that she wanted to be thought of as one of us. Yet as a scientist one has to be cautious.'
'Oh, I agree,' says his mother. 'In her mind the two piles could have a less obvious meaning. Those who are free to come and go versus those who have to stay locked up, for instance. She may have been saying that she preferred to be among the free.'
'Or she may just have wanted to please her keeper,' interjects President Garrard. 'By saying that they looked alike.'
'A bit Machiavellian for an animal, don't you think?' says a large blond man whose name he did not catch.
'Machiavelli the fox, his contemporaries called him,' says his mother.
'But that's a different matter entirely – the fabulous qualities of animals,' objects the large man.
'Yes,' says his mother.
It is all going smoothly enough. They have been served pumpkin soup and no one is complaining. Can he afford to relax?
He was right about the fish. For the entrée the choice is between red snapper with baby potatoes and fettucine with roasted eggplant. Garrard orders the fettucine, as he does; in fact, among the eleven of them there are only three fish orders.
'Interesting how often religious communities choose to define themselves in terms of dietary prohibitions,' observes Garrard.
'Yes,' says his mother.
'I mean, it is interesting that the form of the definition should be, for instance, "We are the people who don't eat snakes" rather than "We are the people who eat lizards". What we don't do rather than what we do do.' Before his move into administration, Garrard was a political scientist.
'It all has to do with cleanness and uncleanness,' says Wunderlich, who despite his name is British. 'Clean and unclean animals, clean and unclean habits. Uncleanness can be a very handy device for deciding who belongs and who doesn't, who is in and who is out.'
'Uncleanness and shame,' he himself interjects. 'Animals have no shame.' He is surprised to hear himself speaking. But why not? – the evening is going well.
'Exactly' says Wunderlich. 'Animals don't hide their excretions, they perform sex in the open. They have no sense of shame, we say: that is what makes them different from us. But the basic idea remains uncleanness. Animals have unclean habits, so they are excluded. Shame makes human beings of us, shame of uncleanness. Adam and Eve: the founding myth. Before that we were all just animals together.'
He has never heard Wunderlich before. He likes him, likes his earnest, stuttering, Oxford manner. A relief from American self-confidence.
'But that can't be how the mechanism works,' objects Olivia Garrard, the president's elegant wife. 'It's too abstract, too much of a bloodless idea. Animals are creatures we don't have sex with – that's how we distinguish them from ourselves. The very thought of sex with them makes us shudder. That is the level at which they are unclean – all of them. We don't mix with them. We keep the clean apart from the unclean.'
'But we eat them.'The voice is Norma's.'We do mix with them. We ingest them. We turn their flesh into ours. So it can't be how the mechanism works. There are specific kinds of animal that we don't eat. Surely those are the unclean ones, not animals in general.'
She is right, of course. But wrong: a mistake to bring the conversation back to the matter on the table before them, the food.
Wunderlich speaks again. 'The Greeks had a feeling there was something wrong in slaughter, but thought they could make up for that by ritualizing it. They made a sacrificial offering, gave a percentage to the gods, hoping thereby to keep the rest. The same notion as the tithe. Ask for the blessing of the gods on the flesh you are about to eat, ask them to declare it clean.'