30 Dec 2016

On the Peacock and the Gamekeeper

Peacock by go-bananas on deviantart.com


The literary imagination of the nineteenth-century was fascinated by the symbol of the peacock. Indeed, even the young D. H. Lawrence, writing at the beginning of the twentieth century, can't resist having one of these ornamental birds come screeching its way into his first novel  ...

The narrator, Cyril Beardsall, is sat one evening in an abandoned churchyard, chatting with his new acquaintance, Annable, the misanthropic (and misogynistic) local gamekeeper.

Although Annable is despised by the villagers and regarded as something of a devil, Cyril can't help confessing the erotic attraction he feels towards him; "his magnificent physique, his great vigour and vitality, and his swarthy, gloomy face drew me in". Cyril also likes the way that the older man treats him "as an affectionate father treats a delicate son", touching him on his shoulder or knee, as they sit discussing "the decline of the human race" into folly and corruption.        
 
Suddenly, a peacock came flapping out from behind the church and flew onto the marble figure of an angel that continued to guard a grave, even if it had long ceased caring for the poor parishioner buried therein:   

"The bird bent its voluptuous neck and peered about. Then it lifted up its head and yelled. The sound tore the dark sanctuary of twilight. ... Again the bird lifted its crested head and gave a cry, at the same time turning awkwardly on its ugly legs, so that it showed us the full wealth of its tail glimmering like a stream of coloured stars over the sunken face of the angel."

At first, Annable was silent and simply watched the peacock moving uneasily in the twilight. But then he exploded with unexpected and somewhat absurd misogynistic rage - especially considering the exuberant maleness that the large bird displayed: 

"'The proud fool! - look at it! Perched on an angel, too, as if it were a pedestal for vanity. That's the soul of a woman ... the very, very soul. Damn the thing, to perch on that old angel. I should like to wring its neck.'"

The peacock gave another loud cry; it seemed to Cyril to be stretching its beak at them in derision. Annable picked up a piece of earth and flung it at the bird, saying: "'Get out, you screeching devil!'" The peacock flew away, over the tombs and down the terraces.

"'Just look!'" said Annable, "'the miserable brute has dirtied that angel. A woman to the end, I tell you, all vanity and screech and defilement.'"

Now, it transpires that this contemptuous view of women is the result of a bad marriage experience; according to Annable, his wife manipulated him from the beginning and quickly turned him into an objectified plaything. Then she got bored and fell in love with a poet. Feeling he'd been shit upon and humiliated, he left and allowed the world to think him dead.

That doesn't sound very nice. But, ultimately, his ugly and resentful remarks on women - like those of Lawrence's other famous gamekeeper, Oliver Mellors, - are unpleasant, unfair, and unforgivable, whatever the unfortunate circumstances that gave rise to them.
 

See: D. H. Lawrence, The White Peacock, ed. Andrew Robertson, (Cambridge University Press, 1983).


4 comments:

  1. "Erotic attraction"?! What rot!
    The current all too commonplace conclusion that one man's admiration for another man's fine physique, and any fond feelings expressed, represent overt or covert "erotic attraction" has become a damn curse and a curb upon the free flow of perfectly natural and normal affection between males.
    And, throwing things at proud peacocks is not to be approved, Lawrence's insight into the mixed, sometimes mixed-up emotions of his fictional characters should never be condemned.
    "Be a good animal, true to your animal instinct", as Annable says.

    Happy New Year to all.
    Dave Brock

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The above should have of course read, "And, WHILE throwing things at proud peacocks is not to be approved ...etc"
      With Apologies and Best Wishes,
      DB

      Delete
    2. There's an implicit homophobia here; the implication is given that eroticised desire between males is unnatural and abnormal. In not removing the comment, I don't want it thought I share or condone this view. Nor, for that matter, do I feel Lawrence's work should be exempt from critical examination.

      Delete
  2. The unfair and untrue"homophobia" taunt/stigma/slur and the threat of censoring sane, honest, truthful comment represent an even more clear and blatant curb on the free expression of wholesome feelings. It is as though dull social conformity and a dreary mono-culture of opinion must rule, and be ever guarded by those whose oh-so sensitive antennae must be twitchily alert and ready to condemn offences against the conventional code. Give us all a break!

    ReplyDelete