On Peacocks: Feathered Re-encounters in the 1890s

IF 0.1 3区 文学 0 POETRY VICTORIAN POETRY Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1353/vp.2023.a907681
Mark Llewellyn
{"title":"On Peacocks: Feathered Re-encounters in the 1890s","authors":"Mark Llewellyn","doi":"10.1353/vp.2023.a907681","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On Peacocks: Feathered Re-encounters in the 1890s Mark Llewellyn (bio) Introduction: Devouring the Bird In January 1914, a group of modernists, including William Butler Yeats and Ezra Pound, ate a peacock at an honorary dinner for the Victorian poet Wilfred Scawen Blunt. As recounted in Lucy McDiarmid’s Poets & the Peacock Dinner (2014), this feast represented an important moment in poetic history on the cusp of the First World War, although, as McDiarmid explores, there was some confusion and miscommunication between the generations of poets at the feast.1 The peacock as an influence in need of killing off, either via eating or other forms of cultural consumption, also inflects a novel almost contemporaneous with the peacock dinner: D. H. Lawrence’s The White Peacock (1911). More explicitly than the dinner for Blunt, Lawrence’s novel utilizes imagery, poetics, and visual culture from the Victorian period, specifically the 1890s and the work of Aubrey Beardsley, to slay various traditional attitudes about the role of art and to argue for a more fluid interpretation of gender and sexuality. Despite the title of Lawrence’s novel, relatively little attention has been paid to its allusion to earlier authors. Nor has much attention been paid to the gendered ambiguity of the peacock, yet, as Kristin Morrison describes it, “[t]he problematic element” is “not the peacock itself— a traditional symbol of vanity— but its female association and its whiteness.”2 Although Morrison’s essay draws on Oscar Wilde’s Salome (1893) and Beardsley’s illustrations for the play (1894) to account for both the femininity and the whiteness in Lawrence’s title, there is no attempt to uncover the sources or motifs of Wilde’s own white peacock. Indeed, in the reliance on the Beardsley illustrations, one can overlook the significance of that white peacock in Wilde’s work and the decadent period more broadly. While Lawrence’s text is indebted to how Wilde and Beardsley “establish[ed] the white-peacock-woman as decadent, possessive, and deadly” and the “sexual ambiguity” in Wilde’s drama, this leads to a question about where Wilde himself encountered the figure of the white peacock, the role it plays in his own work, and what that source might tell us about Wilde’s own revisioning of an earlier poetic motif (Morrison, pp. 247, 242). [End Page 225] This essay is therefore concerned not with the legacy of a particular dinner in 1914 or Lawrence’s revisioning of the 1890s but rather with looking backward from that early twentieth-century moment of literal and meta phorical peacock slaying to the poetry and culture of the fin de siècle in order to understand a longer chain of re-encounter. Specifically, my concern is with the ways in which the decadent poets of the 1880s and 1890s used the peacock motif to re-envision Victorian poetic tropes of the midcentury. The approach here, then, stages multiple sites of re-encounter, tracing a lineage from the peacocks of the 1840s–1870s in the work of Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Christina Rossetti, and Gerard Manley Hopkins, contextualizing this in contemporaneous scientific and aesthetic debates around the theories of Charles Darwin and John Ruskin, before focusing in on peacock texts of the fin de siècle by Wilde and Olive Custance. What connects these re-encounters, I argue, is an ambiguity about the peacock as a motif, including questions of gender and sexuality, the eroticism and exoticism of the depictions, and, most importantly, the meanings behind the recurrence and re-envisioning of the white peacock specifically. The re-encounters staged by Wilde in particular place his concern with the Tennysonian peacock into an aesthetic of artifice and excess for the 1890s. In the context of a recent shift in decadence studies to questions of the role of the natural and nature in decadent thinking, I suggest that looking at something as precise as the adaptive re-encounter with the peacock both offers a tangible consideration of a widespread motif and grounds this in forms of cultural homage and appropriation. In this respect, this essay contributes to a wider conversation about how the natural world might come under increasingly close examination in decadence...","PeriodicalId":54107,"journal":{"name":"VICTORIAN POETRY","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"VICTORIAN POETRY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/vp.2023.a907681","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"POETRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

On Peacocks: Feathered Re-encounters in the 1890s Mark Llewellyn (bio) Introduction: Devouring the Bird In January 1914, a group of modernists, including William Butler Yeats and Ezra Pound, ate a peacock at an honorary dinner for the Victorian poet Wilfred Scawen Blunt. As recounted in Lucy McDiarmid’s Poets & the Peacock Dinner (2014), this feast represented an important moment in poetic history on the cusp of the First World War, although, as McDiarmid explores, there was some confusion and miscommunication between the generations of poets at the feast.1 The peacock as an influence in need of killing off, either via eating or other forms of cultural consumption, also inflects a novel almost contemporaneous with the peacock dinner: D. H. Lawrence’s The White Peacock (1911). More explicitly than the dinner for Blunt, Lawrence’s novel utilizes imagery, poetics, and visual culture from the Victorian period, specifically the 1890s and the work of Aubrey Beardsley, to slay various traditional attitudes about the role of art and to argue for a more fluid interpretation of gender and sexuality. Despite the title of Lawrence’s novel, relatively little attention has been paid to its allusion to earlier authors. Nor has much attention been paid to the gendered ambiguity of the peacock, yet, as Kristin Morrison describes it, “[t]he problematic element” is “not the peacock itself— a traditional symbol of vanity— but its female association and its whiteness.”2 Although Morrison’s essay draws on Oscar Wilde’s Salome (1893) and Beardsley’s illustrations for the play (1894) to account for both the femininity and the whiteness in Lawrence’s title, there is no attempt to uncover the sources or motifs of Wilde’s own white peacock. Indeed, in the reliance on the Beardsley illustrations, one can overlook the significance of that white peacock in Wilde’s work and the decadent period more broadly. While Lawrence’s text is indebted to how Wilde and Beardsley “establish[ed] the white-peacock-woman as decadent, possessive, and deadly” and the “sexual ambiguity” in Wilde’s drama, this leads to a question about where Wilde himself encountered the figure of the white peacock, the role it plays in his own work, and what that source might tell us about Wilde’s own revisioning of an earlier poetic motif (Morrison, pp. 247, 242). [End Page 225] This essay is therefore concerned not with the legacy of a particular dinner in 1914 or Lawrence’s revisioning of the 1890s but rather with looking backward from that early twentieth-century moment of literal and meta phorical peacock slaying to the poetry and culture of the fin de siècle in order to understand a longer chain of re-encounter. Specifically, my concern is with the ways in which the decadent poets of the 1880s and 1890s used the peacock motif to re-envision Victorian poetic tropes of the midcentury. The approach here, then, stages multiple sites of re-encounter, tracing a lineage from the peacocks of the 1840s–1870s in the work of Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Christina Rossetti, and Gerard Manley Hopkins, contextualizing this in contemporaneous scientific and aesthetic debates around the theories of Charles Darwin and John Ruskin, before focusing in on peacock texts of the fin de siècle by Wilde and Olive Custance. What connects these re-encounters, I argue, is an ambiguity about the peacock as a motif, including questions of gender and sexuality, the eroticism and exoticism of the depictions, and, most importantly, the meanings behind the recurrence and re-envisioning of the white peacock specifically. The re-encounters staged by Wilde in particular place his concern with the Tennysonian peacock into an aesthetic of artifice and excess for the 1890s. In the context of a recent shift in decadence studies to questions of the role of the natural and nature in decadent thinking, I suggest that looking at something as precise as the adaptive re-encounter with the peacock both offers a tangible consideration of a widespread motif and grounds this in forms of cultural homage and appropriation. In this respect, this essay contributes to a wider conversation about how the natural world might come under increasingly close examination in decadence...
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
论孔雀:19世纪90年代的羽毛再遇
1914年1月,一群现代主义者,包括威廉·巴特勒·叶芝和埃兹拉·庞德,在为维多利亚时代诗人威尔弗雷德·斯考文·布朗特举行的荣誉晚宴上,吃了一只孔雀。正如露西·麦克迪亚米德(Lucy McDiarmid)在《诗人与孔雀晚宴》(Poets & the Peacock Dinner, 2014)中所述,这场盛宴代表了第一次世界大战前夕诗歌历史上的一个重要时刻,尽管正如麦克迪亚米德(McDiarmid)所探究的那样,在宴会上的几代诗人之间存在一些困惑和误解孔雀作为一种需要被消灭的影响力,无论是通过饮食还是其他形式的文化消费,也影响了一部几乎与孔雀晚餐同时代的小说:d·h·劳伦斯的《白孔雀》(1911)。劳伦斯的小说比布朗特的晚餐更明确地利用了维多利亚时期的意象、诗学和视觉文化,特别是19世纪90年代和奥布里·比尔兹利的作品,打破了关于艺术角色的各种传统态度,并主张对性别和性行为进行更流畅的解释。尽管劳伦斯的小说的标题,相对较少的注意,它的暗指早期作家。人们也很少关注孔雀的性别歧义,然而,正如克里斯汀·莫里森(Kristin Morrison)所描述的那样,“有问题的因素”“不是孔雀本身——一个传统的虚荣象征——而是它与女性的联系和它的白色。”尽管莫里森的文章借鉴了奥斯卡·王尔德的《莎乐美》(1893)和比尔兹利为这部戏剧绘制的插图(1894)来解释劳伦斯标题中的女性气质和白色,但并没有试图揭示王尔德自己的白孔雀的来源或主题。的确,在对比尔兹利插图的依赖中,人们可以忽略那只白孔雀在王尔德作品和更广泛的颓废时期中的重要性。虽然劳伦斯的文本感谢王尔德和比尔兹利如何“将白孔雀女人塑造成颓败的、占有的、致命的”,以及王尔德戏剧中的“性模糊”,但这导致了一个问题:王尔德自己在哪里遇到白孔雀的形象,它在他自己的作品中扮演的角色,以及这一来源可能告诉我们王尔德自己对早期诗歌母题的修改(莫里森,第244,242页)。因此,这篇文章关注的不是1914年的一场特殊晚餐的遗产,也不是劳伦斯对19世纪90年代的修订,而是从20世纪初的文字和元历史上的孔雀杀戮时刻回顾到最后一刻的诗歌和文化,以便理解更长的再相遇链。具体来说,我关注的是19世纪80年代和90年代的颓废诗人如何使用孔雀主题来重新想象20世纪中叶维多利亚时代的诗歌修辞。因此,本书的研究方法是在多个地点进行重新相遇,从19世纪40年代至70年代阿尔弗雷德、丁尼生勋爵、克里斯蒂娜·罗塞蒂和杰拉德·曼利·霍普金斯的作品中追踪孔雀的血统,在围绕查尔斯·达尔文和约翰·罗斯金的理论进行的同时代科学和美学辩论中,将其置于背景中,然后将重点放在王尔德和奥利弗·科斯坦斯的《最后的结局》中的孔雀文本上。我认为,连接这些重新相遇的是一种关于孔雀作为主题的模糊性,包括性别和性的问题,描绘的色情和异国情调,最重要的是,再现和重新构想白孔雀背后的意义。王尔德的重新相遇特别地将他对丁尼森孔雀的关注置于19世纪90年代的一种技巧和过度的美学中。在最近颓废主义研究转向自然和自然在颓废主义思想中的作用的背景下,我建议,像孔雀的适应性重新相遇这样精确的观察,既提供了对广泛主题的切实考虑,又以文化敬意和挪用的形式为基础。在这方面,这篇文章促成了一个更广泛的讨论,即自然世界如何在颓废中受到越来越密切的审视……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: Founded in 1962 to further the aesthetic study of the poetry of the Victorian Period in Britain (1830–1914), Victorian Poetry publishes articles from a broad range of theoretical and critical angles, including but not confined to new historicism, feminism, and social and cultural issues. The journal has expanded its purview from the major figures of Victorian England (Tennyson, Browning, the Rossettis, etc.) to a wider compass of poets of all classes and gender identifications in nineteenth-century Britain and the Commonwealth. Victorian Poetry is edited by John B. Lamb and sponsored by the Department of English at West Virginia University.
期刊最新文献
Introduction: The Place of Victorian Poetry Keeping Faith in Victorian Poetry Reflections on Twenty Years in Victorian Poetry Victorian Women's Poetry and the Near-Death Experience of a Category Undisciplining Art Sisterhood
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1