UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The modern bestiary : animal fiction from Hardy to Orwell Asker, D.B.D. 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A1 A84.pdf [ 13.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094474.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094474-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094474-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094474-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094474-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094474-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094474-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094474-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094474.ris

Full Text

The Modern Bestiary : Animal F i c t i o n From Hardy to Orwell by D. B. D. Asker B.A., Univ e r s i t y of York, England, 1972. M.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975. A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of English) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA %) D. B. D. Asker, 1978 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree l y ava i l ab le for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thesis fo r f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of ENGLISH The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date Oct. 4 1978 ABSTRACT The aim of t h i s study i s to explore d i f f e r e n t kinds of animal f i c t i o n written i n English l i t e r a t u r e between 1870 and 1945. Neither an i n c l u s i v e account nor a survey, i t examines both l i t e r a r y technique and thematic substance. Taking Darwin's O r i g i n of Species as a s i g n i f i c a n t point of departure, i t discusses such authors as Hardy, K i p l i n g , Wells, Lawrence, Orwell, and others, arguing that the great v a r i e t y of animals we f i n d constitutes a substantial r e v i v a l i n the fortunes of Bestiary a r t . In the Middle Ages much animal l i t e r a t u r e was produced, and the burden of t h i s , e i t h e r as fable or Bestiary proper, was moral i n s t r u c t i o n . In the modern period we see that t h i s broad moral base remains i n t a c t and that animal l i f e forms a natural paradigm to which an age i n moral turmoil can turn. This thesis shows that modern B r i t i s h w r i t e r s , l i k e other men i n other times, have turned to the world of animal nature, r e a l i s t i c a l l y or f i g -u r a t i v e l y or ' f a n t a s t i c a l l y ' , to f i n d a better o r i e n t a t i o n to the world — to f i n d a more s a t i s f a c t o r y view of man's place i n nature. Although the moral base remains consistent, the l i t e r a r y techniques of animal depiction do not. The f i r s t part of the thes i s , f o r ex ample, examines "The S o c i o - p o l i t i c a l Bestiary" of K i p l i n g and Orwell, and notes that these authors frequently (though not always) r e l y on highly person-i f i e d animal, characters to embody abstract q u a l i t i e s or ideas relevant to p a r t i c u l a r p o l i t i c a l ideologies. Hardy and Lawrence, on the other hand, seek to depict animals £is animals, without the overt anthropo-morphism i m p l i c i t i n the pe r s o n i f i e d and f a b l i s t i c manner. These two authors constitute Part II of the t h e s i s , and i n endowing t h e i r animals i i with the l i v e l y i n t e g r i t y of beings d i s t i n c t l y 'other' than man, they i m p l i c i t l y argue for an integrated view of a l l natural l i f e . At the same time, t h e i r animals are very d e l i b e r a t e l y 'used' as symbolic analogues of human s i t u a t i o n s , and thus bear a thematic s i g n i f i c a n c e to the intense concerns held by Hardy and Lawrence. The t h i r d section d i f f e r s considerably from both of the previous parts. Here we analyse three authors (H.G.Wells, David Garnett, and John C o l l i e r ) a l l of whom describe d i f f e r e n t kinds of human/animal metamorphosis whereby the attenuated r e l a t i o n s h i p between man and animal becomes more blurred than usual; animal l i f e here becomes a predominantly negative force by which man's moral and psychological health may be gauged. Whether by s c i e n t i f i c v i v i s e c t i o n , magical change of form, or rapid evolutionary growth, the animals (or creatures) represent fears and anxieties that lurk beneath a t h i n veneer of c i v i l i z a t i o n . The modern B e s t i a r i s t s represent a wide v a r i e t y of f i c t i o n a l technique and an equally extensive range of thematic i n t e r e s t . Nonetheless, th ere i s a consistency i n the common idea that animals may e f f e c t i v e l y represent an o b j e c t i f i e d version of human l i f e and thus serve an obvious educational function. An age i n which the Darwinian revo l u t i o n had demonstrated man's kinship with the animals, and i n which t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i a l mores came incre a s i n g l y under attack, could w e l l seek to learn from an animal l i f e u n s u l l i e d by the intense pressures a technological society imposes. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract i i INTRODUCTION 1 PART I: The S o c i o - P o l i t i c a l Bestiary of Rudyard K i p l i n g and George Orwell 12 Rudyard K i p l i n g . . . . . 17 George Orwell 66 PART I I : The Natural Symbolism of Thomas Hardy and D. H. Lawrence 102 Thomas Hardy 107 D. H. Lawrence 136 PART I I I : Beastly Man i n Wells, Garnett and C o l l i e r 198 H. G. Wells 203 David Garnett . 224 John C o l l i e r 241 AFTERWORD 252 NOTES 255 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 275 iv If any person thinks the examination of the re s t of the animal kingdom an unworthy task, he must hold i n l i k e disesteem the study of man. ( A r i s t o t l e , De Partibus Animalium.) v 1 INTRODUCTION Man shares the world with many other animals and i n the course of h i s t o r y has viewed them i n a v a r i e t y of ways. He has used them for sport, for food, for work, and even for r e l i g i o u s symbols. At times, he has even deigned to admit them to h i s companionship. In a l l of these r o l e s animals have been v i t a l ( i f subservient) partners i n man's development, and t h e i r frequent appearance i n l i t e r a t u r e r e f l e c t s an obvious importance. Most often, animals have been used f o r purposes of moral i n s t r u c t i o n and the most apt example of t h i s i s the Medieval Bestiary. This type of l i t e r a t u r e has a s p e c i f i c and l o c a l d e f i n i t i o n but for our broader needs the Bestiary may be understood as any example of l i t e r a t u r e i n which animals (and birds) play a s t r a t e g i c r o l e i n c l a r i f y i n g the human themes an author i s interested i n . Animals are e s p e c i a l l y u s e f u l i n t h i s regard since although many of them are behaviourally close to man they are s u f f i c i e n t l y 'other' to embody and o b j e c t i f y human ( p a r t i c u l a r l y moral) q u a l i t i e s . In one of the e a r l i e s t t r e a t i s e s on animals, A r i s t o t l e pointed d i r e c t l y to t h i s kind of correspondence: For j u s t as we pointed out resemblances i n the phy s i c a l organs, so i n a number of animals we observe gentleness and fierceness, mildness or cross-temper, courage or t i m i d i t y , fear or confidence, h i g h - s p i r i t s or low-cunning , and, with regard to i n t e l l i g e n c e , something akin to sagacity. Some of these q u a l i t i e s i n man, as compared with the corresponding q u a l i t i e s i n animals, d i f f e r only q u a n t i t i v e l y : that i s to say, a man has more or l e s s of t h i s q u a l i t y , and an animal has more or l e s s of some other; other q u a l i t i e s i n man are represented by analogous and not i d e n t i c a l q u a l i t i e s : for instance, j u s t as i n man we f i n d knowledge, wisdom, and sagacity, so i n c e r t a i n animals there e x i s t s some natural p o t e n t i a l i t y akin to these. 2 Within t h i s kind of empirical argument, prompted we should always remember by observation of animal behaviour, we f i n d reinforcement of the t r a d i t i o n a l pattern of the Aesopic fable i n which a human q u a l i t y i s assumed by a p a r t i c u l a r animal or by a s i t u a t i o n that two or more animals play out. The fable i s perhaps the most well-known form of Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e and i n i t there i s the often humorous or i r o n i c spectacle of a human being represented by a creature of an obviously lower status. The function of a fable i s to teach some kind of e t h i c a l maxim, and drawing upon incidents from natural animal l i f e doubtless made the moral encomium more acceptable and appealing because more a e s t h e t i c a l l y engaging. Medieval B e s t i a r i e s were themselves t r e a t i s e s designed to use incidents from animal 2 l i f e to support C h r i s t i a n teachings, and we see i n the Medieval period generally a strong r e l i a n c e on Bestiary forms of l i t e r a t u r e for the e f f e c t i v e 3 presentation of ideas. An intensely t h e o l o g i c a l age, the Medieval period found t h i s kind of l i t e r a t u r e appropriate to i t s needs, and i t was not uncommon f o r p r i e s t s to r e l y on i t for the precepts they delivered from the p u l p i t . Yet though the main focus was doubtless on i n s t r u c t i o n , aesthetic considerations must also have played t h e i r part i n making Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e popular. C e r t a i n l y , the example of Chaucer's "The Nun's P r i e s t ' s Tale" should dissuade anyone from assuming too e a s i l y that Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e i s n e c e s s a r i l y low-genre. As the Middle Ages gave way to the Renaissance the popularity of Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e declined. I t did not die out completely, of course, and P. A n s e l l Robin has demonstrated how i t had a r e s i d u a l impact on the major writers of the English Renaissance. Swift's Book IV of G u l l i v e r ' s Travels as w e l l as 3 Dryden's "The Hind and the Panther" stand as l a t e examples of the t r a d i t i o n and i t i s obvious from these that the Bestiary i s not a dead mode for as long as man needs to be shown h i s arrogance or f o l l y . Nonetheless, as a general and f o r c e f u l presence, Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e declined. However, since the l a t t e r part of the 19th Century, the Bestiary has once again become evident, though not n e c e s s a r i l y , i t should be stressed, within the l i m i t i n g confines of the animal fable or allegory. Serious authors have turned towards the world of animals, and towards the r e l a t i o n s h i p between man and animal, and created what we may c a l l "The Modern Bestiary". This thesis i s an attempt to describe the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h i s phenomenon as i t i s r e f l e c t e d i n such writers as Thomas Hardy, D. H. Lawrence, Rudyard K i p l i n g , George Orwell, H. G. Wells, and others. Within t h e i r prose, a l l of these writers have turned with renewed vigour to a representation of animals, and through t h i s have sought to present a f u l l e r p i c t u r e of the world. They have each done t h i s i n t h e i r own way, and we would scarcely expect such disparate writers as K i p l i n g and Lawrence to share any s p e c i a l s i m i l a r i t i e s of s t y l e or theme. Nevertheless, i t w i l l be seen that a l l the modern B e s t i a r i s t s have r e l i e d on t h e i r animal characters, symbolic, r e a l i s t i c , or both, to act as analogues by which human predicaments may be presented and c l a r i f i e d . . I t w i l l be seen that each author's r e l i a n c e on an animal character serves a p a r t i c u l a r function within an o v e r a l l l i t e r a r y design, and that i t s i n c l u s i o n n e c e s s a r i l y plays upon an i m p l i c i t correspondence between human and animal behaviour. Before we proceed to discuss some of the h i s t o r i c a l and p h i l o s o p h i c a l conditions that gave r i s e to t h i s r e v i v a l of Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e , i t i s 4 worthwhile o u t l i n i n g the p r i n c i p l e ways that animals may be f i c t i o n a l l y depicted. A writer may draw h i s animals either as abstract 'counters', important only for the general q u a l i t y they represent, or as r e a l beings evoked with the f u l l force of n a t u r a l i s t i c d e t a i l . The former manner i s often associated with the fable and allegory where the author i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y interested i n the animal as animal. Usually, i n t h i s type of l i t e r a t u r e an animal i s pe r s o n i f i e d ^ represents an abstract human qua l i t y / a n d i s endowed with human speech and r a t i o c i n a t i o n . A human being i s thus made into a 'type' which i n i t s often one-dimensional q u a l i t y i s e f f e c t i v e l y evoked by an animal. In contrast to t h i s s t y l e i s the mode of representation i n which an animal behaves r e a l i s t i c a l l y and without any overt interference from the author. This method i s c l e a r l y based on the biases of f i c t i o n a l realism which demand that humans, animals, as well as inanimate objects, be evoked accurately and as they r e a l l y are. Naturalism, as propounded by Emile Zola, sought to go further than t h i s and to represent r e a l i t y as o b j e c t i v e l y perceived.^ One offshoot from t h i s was such Animal N a t u r a l i s t s as S i r Charles Roberts and Ernest Thompson Seton, both of whom sought to present animals almost as objects i n the natural laboratory, without any i n t e r -f e r r i n g anthropomorphism. In t h i s kind of representation, the f a b l i s t i c habit of personifying animals was to be eschewed i n favour of a supposedly less anthropocentric form. However, i t should not be assumed that because an author depicts h i s animals as they r e a l l y are that he escapes an i m p l i c i t frame of moral reference. In so d e l i b e r a t e l y drawing animals as animals, such people as Roberts and Seton expose t h e i r own anthropomorphism, and i t becomes quite p l a i n as one reads t h e i r s t o r i e s that we are offered a great deal more than objective Natural Science.' In describing the two p r i n c i p l e modes of depicting animals we see that each represents a strong tendency, e i t h e r towards the more abstract or the more r e a l . I t i s also apparent that there i s no hard and f a s t l i n e which separates these tendencies; any example of Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e i s l i k e l y to partake of both though there w i l l probably be a leaning toward one or the other. This i s nowhere more apparent than i n the modern B e s t i a r i s t s . Part I, for example, looks at Rudyard K i p l i n g and George Orwell both of whom r e l y on the older forms of the fable and allegory. But at the same time each on several occasions t r i e d to go beyond these forms and to present animals as v i t a l and natural i n t h e i r own r i g h t . S i m i l a r l y , Thomas Hardy and D. H. Lawrence seek to evoke animals n a t u r a l -i s t i c a l l y , e s p e c i a l l y Lawrence, and yet both make them serve often extreme anthopomorphic functions. A horse l i k e St. Mawr, f o r example, i s very d e f i n i t e l y only a horse, but under the pressure of Lawrence's themes and i n t e n s i t i e s he comes to represent a l i f e - f o r c e which r e l a t e s to human beings. In the t h i r d and l a s t part of t h i s study humans are often turned into animals, or v i c e versa, and whereas t h i s i s done r e a l i s t i c a l l y , the innate i m p l a u s i b i l i t y of the occurrence/!, exerts an unreal and ' f a n t a s t i c ' pressure. In t h i s world of composite beasts, the animals (or creatures) are described n a t u r a l i s t i c a l l y but operate within a human context i n which they can sometimes speak and think humanly. The three parts of t h i s study attempt to group authors not only by t h e i r s t y l i s t i c tendency but also by t h e i r thematic s i m i l a r i t i e s . In focusing upon K i p l i n g and Orwell we w i l l discuss what we'.may c a l l 6 the " S o c i o - P o l i t i c a l Bestiary." Using animals as masks to in d i c a t e 'types' of human character provides "a useful v e h i c l e for the presentation of p o l i t i c a l argument. K i p l i n g and Orwell seem to occupy polarized p o l i t i c a l perspectives, and yet both stem from the same kind of background and were l a r g e l y conditioned by the same s o c i a l ethos. Both wrote out of profound s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l b e l i e f s and found i n notions of the Empire motives f o r p o l i t i c a l action. What i s of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i s that they should have made such ready recourse to Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e for the expression of t h e i r p o l i t i c a l ideas. Part I then juxtaposes these two B e s t i a r i s t s and attempts to gauge the q u a l i t i e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i r animal depiction. Part II focuses on Hardy and Lawrence. I t i s at once apparent that neither of these writers could have found the a r t i f i c i a l i t y of the fable s u i t a b l e to t h e i r intense human concerns. Both wrote out of a commitment to and love for the natural world, and both struggled with the broadly moral problems that the dichotomy between Nature and c i v i l i z a t i o n presented them with. For Hardy, t h i s took the form of open and frank sympathy with animals which suffered the same c r u e l fate as did man within a Nature i n d i f f e r e n t to the welfare of her inhabitants. At the same time, he saw in the f a i r and humane treatment of animal l i f e a moral hope; he perceived a d i r e c t c o r r e l a t i o n between man's inhumanity to man and h i s inhumanity to animals. Lawrence, on the other hand, saw the r e l a t i o n s h i p between man and animal, p a r t i c u l a r l y on the i n s t i n c t u a l l e v e l , as close (though by no means i d e n t i c a l ) and saw one of the roots of modern man's problems as an i n a b i l i t y to reach h i s own animal s e l f . By frequently juxtaposing human and 7 animal behaviour and thereby e f f e c t i n g an analogous r e l a t i o n s h i p , Lawrence draws the reader's at t e n t i o n to bear upon the question of what man i s i n his most natural and i n s t i n c t u a l state and thus what forces operate to 'de-nature' him. Also, as well as providing Lawrence with thematic armatures, animals give him the welcome opportunity to paint i n words as f u l l y as he can d e l i g h t f u l animal behaviour. Both Hardy and Lawrence then, show a strongly p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e towards animals and they argue that animals are endowed with q u a l i t i e s before which man's 'divine' reason seems pale or inadequate for l i f e . Because of t h i s broad s i m i l a r i t y and because both have a tendency to elevate t h e i r l i t e r a r y animals into "Natural Symbols", Hardy and Lawrence may f r u i t f u l l y be seen together. The t h i r d part i s concerned with three writers who purposely intermix human and animal q u a l i t i e s i n an i m p l i c i t discussion of what distinguishes man from the other animals and what forces are at work which tend towards man's b e s t i a l i z a t i o n . H. G. Wells, David Garnett, and John C o l l i e r a l l address these issues, though very much i n t h e i r own ways, and a l l show man and animal i n an uncomfortably close r e l a t i o n s h i p . Indeed, so close i s i t that the d i s t i n c t i o n s are almost n e g l i g i b l e , and at times one may modulate into the other. In a r e l i a n c e on such far-fetched notions as animal metamorphosis, whether by Ovidian magic or by the manipulations of s c i e n -t i f i c d i s s e c t i o n , Wells and Garnett seek to suggest something about the precarious state of humanity and to uncover psychological fears about the inhuman beast that may s t i l l l u r k beneath modern man's sophisticated surface. John C o l l i e r ' s i r o n i c suggestion that a female chimpanzee i s more capable of human love and compassion than a 'modern' woman s i m i l a r l y stresses the 8 inherent sense that on the evolutionary and moral time-scale human regression i s more than possible, e s p e c i a l l y perhaps i n the modern era. By using animals that i n one way or another suggest modern man's shortcomings, the wri t e r s of Part I I I e x h i b i t a thematic unity and constitute an important, and I hope i n t e r e s t i n g , aspect of t h i s study. We might at t h i s point properly ask why there should have been a renewed i n t e r e s t i n Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e within the past century. In a sense t h i s i s an unanswerable question, or at l e a s t one that would prompt many answers, each applicable to a s i n g l e author. Nevertheless, we may suggest that beginning i n the l a t e 19th Century a profound change took place i n the way that man sees himself i n r e l a t i o n to the r e s t of Nature. The predominant at t i t u d e s of the C h r i s t i a n era stressed the uniqueness of man rather than h i s kinship with the r e s t of the animal kingdom. Man's s p i r i t u a l essence as conceived by C h r i s t i a n theology distinguished man g almost completely from the other animals. A f t e r a l l , animal worship was one form of paganism that a Monotheistic r e l i g i o n would n a t u r a l l y wish to suppress, and the suggestion that man was merely an animal would have jeopard-ized the concept of an ang e l - l i k e soul. Despite such obvious and happy exceptions as St. Francis of A s s i s i , the predominant i d e a , l a r g e l y . " unchallenged, was that there was an irrevocable gap between man and animal and that t h i s gap was the r e s u l t of e i t h e r the God-given soul or the God-given f a c u l t y of reason. These concepts of the Soul and Reason as embodiments of the divine spark, were to become strenuously challenged, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the post-Darwinian i n t e l l e c t u a l era. With the p u b l i c a t i o n of Darwin's Origins of 9 Species (1859), the E v o l u t i o n i s t p r i n c i p l e s that had been gathering strength 9 throughout the century emerged into f u l l and i r r e f u t a b l e r e a l i t y . The widely-held view that man was irrevocably separated from the beasts by v i r t u e of h i s s p i r i t u a l endowments received a severe blow. Of course, the idea of e t h i c a l l y d i s i n t e r e s t e d Science had been established long before 1859, and we know from such thinkers as' Montaigne that notions of man's kinship with the other animals were not new."^ Darwin, however, together with T. H. Huxley, was the f i r s t to o f f e r s a t i s f a c t o r y proof that man evolved and that the animals were h i s cousins. The most overt change i n s e n s i b i l i t y occurred i n man's view of the act of creation. The p r i n c i p l e of Natural Selection had introduced a mechan-i s t i c q u a l i t y of chance that stood i n d i r e c t opposition to the concept of a beneficent Deity, wisely c o n t r o l l i n g the fate of man. Nature was, i n empirical f a c t at l e a s t , quite a r b i t r a r y and favoured none but the strong and the f i t . From t h i s observation arose the i n e v i t a b l e question: What then distinguishes man from the animals? Subsumed within t h i s question i s a larger one: What then i s man, and what i s h i s place, or function, within Nature? On the f i r s t question, Darwin was quite e x p l i c i t ; the d i s t i n c t i o n between man and ape was not of 'kind' but of 'degree'. The stunning r e a l i -zation, b i t t e r l y debated both then and now, was that man i s merely an animal who has evolved out of a 'lower' l i f e - f o r m . In the popular imagination, these ideas doubtless became divorced from t h e i r s c i e n t i f i c contexts, and there arose the f a l l a c i o u s notion that man had descended from an ape. In more elevated c i r c l e s , the Church heirarchy for example, Darwinism was to have profoundly d i s t u r b i n g e f f e c t s , and was to force t r a d i t i o n a l theology 10 into rethinking i t s p o s i t i o n on the divine purpose for man, who, we must remember, was created i n God's image. That.the Church was f i n a l l y capable of adapting i s admirably demonstrated i n the work of Pere Teilhard de C h a r d i n . ^ The impact of Darwinism helped to bring about, I argue, a renewed human concern with man's r e l a t i o n s to the other animals. One r e s u l t i s the array of Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e t h i s thesis i s concerned with. This l i t e r a t u r e did not always r e l y on a d i r e c t use of Darwinian ideas, and sometimes i t attempted to deride them. Nor should i t be too e a s i l y assumed that a l l of a sudden modern man began to doubt the very r e a l i n t e l l e c t u a l advantages that he enjoys over the other species. Furthermore, i t i s probable that Darwinism was only one of the revolutionary changes that brought about a re-examination of man's place and purpose i n the world. One need only think of the work of Freud, Nietzsche, Fraser, and Marx to f e e l convinced that there were many s o c i a l forces operating to undermine t r a d i t i o n a l views of l i f e , and to create an i n t e l l e c t u a l temper characterised by anxiety and i n s e c u r i t y . Consider too the impact of advancing technology and then l a t e r i t s apotheosis i n the Great War. In a l l , the Modern period suggests i t s e l f as an epoch of profound trans-i t i o n , where the old mores, under the precipitous e f f e c t of a vigorous new Science, were no longer unquestionably v a l i d . And i n an uncertain age where general unease was frequently accompanied by b e s t i a l a t r o c i t i e s , or the fear of them, the question of man's r e l a t i o n to the other animals r e a d i l y assumed a m u l t i p l i e d importance. Is i t any wonder that many a r t i s t s of the period should have had recourse to the world of animal nature, both for moral guidance, and for a redefined sense of what i t means to be human? Not 11 a l l the a r t i s t s of t h i s study sought consciously to do t h i s , but a l l of them made th e i r c o ntribution. Despite the obvious importance of figures l i k e Darwin, t h i s thesis i s not p r i n c i p a l l y concerned with an enquiry into the h i s t o r y of ideas as i t i s r e f l e c t e d i n l i t e r a t u r e . I mention these ideas here only to suggest the h i s t o r i c a l backdrop against which the Bestiary of the modern period was played. Of course, some authors, and one immediately thinks of Thomas Hardy and H. G. Wells, were d i r e c t l y influenced by Darwinism and therefore some account of t h i s influence must be taken. But t h i s i s only secondary. Rather, t h i s thesis i s a study which attempts to discuss the l i t e r a r y q u a l i t i e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of The Modern Bestiary, incorporating only such sources and influences that seem e s s e n t i a l to t h i s purpose. I do not attempt to catalogue a l l examples of the Modern Bestiary i n English f i c t i o n , but rather o f f e r a study of i t s major achievements. PART I: RUDYARD KIPLING and GEORGE ORWELL: THE SOCIO-POLITICAL BESTIARY Demades, a famous Greek orator, was once addressing an assembly at Athens on a subject of great importance and i n vain t r i e d to f i x the attention of h i s hearers. They laughed among themselves, watched the sports of the children and i n twenty other ways showed t h e i r want of concern i n the subject of the discourse. Demades, a f t e r a short pause spoke as follows: 'Ceres one day journeyed i n company with a swallow and an e l l ' . At t h i s there was marked attention and every ear strained now to catch the words of the orator. (Attributed to Aesop.) 13 Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e has a strong background i n p o l i t i c a l statement. In A r i s t o t l e ' s Rhetoric we f i n d the f i r s t recorded account of an Aesopic fable and A r i s t o t l e ' s reference to i t suggests the p o l i t i c a l nature of the lesson which the fable describes."'" He remarks that "fables are s u i t a b l e 2 for addresses to popular assemblies" and derives from t h i s the idea that p o l i t i c a l truths may be happily enforced through t h i s d i d a c t i c l i t e r a r y form. Proof that Aesop himself was a p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s t , executed by the Delphinians because of the seditious nature of h i s fables, i s inconclusive. But whether or not we concur i n Ernest Rhys's view that Aesop went to h i s 3 death f o r t e l l i n g "too f e e l i n g l y the fable of the Ox and the Frog", i t i s c e r t a i n l y true that the animal fable may e f f e c t i v e l y 'mask' and conceal p o l i t i c a l personages and events within the character(s) of an animal. The safe convenience which animal characters provide was widely used i n the medieval period. The B e s t i a r i e s themselves, of course, sought to present C h r i s t i a n truths more e f f e c t i v e l y by couching them i n a l e s s austere way. Other works, however, used the same 'masking' device for more 4 overt p o l i t i c a l purposes. A Song of the Times, for example, sought to use the beasts of the f i e l d a l l e g o r i c a l l y to express concern over the u n f a i r system of taxation. S i m i l a r l y , William Langland uses the fable of the cats, r a t s , and mice i n the Prologue to Pie r s Plowman to introduce an obvious p o l i t i c a l tension."* At the other end of the p o l i t i c a l spectrum there i s John Gower's Vox Clamantis i n which a nightmare i s envisioned describing Wat Tyler's attempt to overthrow the r u l i n g Lords of the land. The characters i n t h i s work are represented by various animals and b i r d s , with Wat himself as the untrustworthy jay. 14 In a l l of these works, and others of l e s s o v e r t l y p o l i t i c a l i n t e n t i o n s , the w r i t e r s ' i n t e r e s t i n using animals i s turned towards evoking p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l circumstances. There i s l i t t l e attempt, for example, at d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n into the p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s of human psychology. Animal characters are e s p e c i a l l y useful f or t h i s kind of l i t e r a t u r e since, while"^- • saving the author from . censure or l i b e l they also a t t r a c t the reader's amused attention and avoid the technical problems caused by creating human characters. Writers who use animals i n t h i s way usually have preconceived ideas of the a t t i t u d e or c r i t i c i s m they wish to communi-cate, and to t h i s extent such l i t e r a t u r e tends to be dogmatic. Thus, i f the author wishes to c r i t i c i s e a p o l i t i c i a n ' s d e c e i t f u l actions, he may use a fox as h i s representation and the well-known emblematic q u a l i t i e s of th i s animal are thereby invested i n the man. For the reader, the aesthetic appeal i s heightened by the humorous i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between a man and an animal of lesser value. The subtlety of t h i s kind of humour, or the point-edness of the p o l i t i c a l c r i t i q u e , would obviously depend upon the a r t i s t i c merits of the w r i t e r . In the modern era^Rudyard K i p l i n g and George Orwell were both writers of p o l i t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e and both had frequent recourse to the Bestiary. K i p l i n g ' s Jungle Books as well as a host of short s t o r i e s such as "The Mother-Hive", "A Walking Delegate", "The Maltese Cat", "The Dog Hervey", and many more, a l l tend to r e i n f o r c e the at t i t u d e s and convictions with which Ki p l i n g ' s name has become synonymous. S i m i l a r l y , a work l i k e Animal  Farm r e f l e c t s Orwell's p o l i t i c a l consciousness and reveals that the technique of employing pe r s o n i f i e d animals for p o l i t i c a l reasons i s as v a l i d for our 15 society as i t was for any other. Int e r e s t i n g l y , both K i p l i n g and Orwell were p a r t l y brought up i n the Imperial Far East. This background was to produce i n each very strong p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s . K i p l i n g was a conservative thinker and a b e l i e v e r i n the p r a c t i c a l and moral v i r t u e s of the Empire. Orwell served the Empire that K i p l i n g supported but found i t corrupt; as a consequence he became a s o c i a l i s t and an a n t i - i m p e r i a l i s t . Regardless of t h i s antinomy i n p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n , K i p l i n g and Orwell were both men of strong moral f e e l i n g . To K i p l i n g , the Empire was the best way to ensure the greatest p o l i t i c a l and economic s t a b i l i t y ; to Orwell, s o c i a l i s m best served the human q u a l i t i e s of l i b e r t y and j u s t i c e . ^ For both,the r e a l i t i e s of p o l i t i c a l l i f e were forced through and exaggerated by the complex and often disconcerting s i t u a t i o n s they faced i n India and Burma re s p e c t i v e l y . This common background led, I argue, to temperamental conditions most conducive to Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e . In being engaged p o l i t i c a l w r i t e r s , K i p l i n g and Orwell tended to be more preoccupied with s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l themes than with the kind of psychological realism which characterises much 19th century f i c t o n . Consequently, animal 'types' were very useful short-hand means by which s i t u a t i o n s could be most simply and pungently expressed. This idea consorts well with the moral and s i m p l i f i e d q u a l i t i e s that f a b l i s t i c animals best t y p i f y and with the moral bases which K i p l i n g and Orwell believed i n . A d d i t i o n a l l y , we should suggest the e f f e c t that the p e c u l i a r l y symbolic q u a l i t y of the Eastern view of animals would have produced. I t would have been impossible for e i t h e r writer to be unaware of the profoundly r e l i g i o u s and symbolic sense of animals that Hindus and Buddhists have. 16 The p o l i t i c a l , moral, and environmental q u a l i t i e s that K i p l i n g and Orwell shared predisposed them to write Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e of f a b l i s t i c and a l l e g o r i c a l kinds. Interested as they were i n presenting p o l i t i c a l ideas, i t was t h i s type of s i m p l i f y i n g technique that was most appropriate for the maximum c l a r i f i c a t i o n of t h e i r respective points of view. Thus, i n s t y l e we s h a l l see that t h e i r animals are very often p e r s o n i f i e d 'counters' which represent p a r t i c u l a r human q u a l i t i e s . However, th i s i s not uniformly so and we should not assume a complete lack of n a t u r a l i s t i c d e t a i l . A f t e r a l l , the predominant f i c t i o n a l a t t i t u d e demanded some amount of realism and consequently i n a work l i k e Jungle Books, animals are used a l l e g o r i c a l l y but often described n a t u r a l i s t i c a l l y . S i m i l a r l y , i n Orwell's Burmese Days, as w e l l as essay-stories such as "Shooting an Elephant", we see animals that are wholly r e a l i s t i c yet which embody symbolic, abstract q u a l i t i e s . Even i n Animal Farm the animals are occasionally described i n ways that convince us of t h e i r physical animalness; the extreme a l l e g o r i c a l formality of Animal Farm represents the culmination of Orwell's e a r l i e r animal usages a l l of which d e l i b e r a t e l y s t r i v e for n a t u r a l i s t i c a u t h e n t i c i t y . It should be c l e a r by now why K i p l i n g and Orwell resorted so frequently to the Bestiary. But i t w i l l not do to suggest that t h i s tendency was determined wholly by the pragmatic forces of p o l i t i c a l need. Both writers l i k e d animals! This i s not to suggest, of course, that t h e i r i n c l u s i o n within l i t e r a t u r e implies sentimentality. Many readers and c r i t i c s s t i l l seem to believe that the use of f a b l i s t i c animals presupposes such an a t t i t u d e , and that works which employ animals as c e n t r a l protagonists are by d e f i n i t i o n l e s s serious than those which employ humans. This presup-17 p o s i t i o n may well be t r u e — t h e great examples of f i c t i o n (excluding perhaps Moby Dick) are i n t h i s sense anthropocentric—but i t would be f a l s e to compare the greatest examples of r e a l i s t i c f i c t i o n with animal fables and a l l e g o r i e s which by t h e i r nature are so d i f f e r e n t i n s t y l e and i n t e n t . When we read the animal l i t e r a t u r e of K i p l i n g and Orwell we must view i t by the standards which such l i t e r a t u r e demands. S i m i l a r l y , and t h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y so with K i p l i n g , we must not confuse the presupposition of sentimentality with i t s actual presence. For both writers we must be s e n s i t i v e to the not inconsiderable c r a f t of depicting animals within the demanding l i m i t a t i o n s of the fable and a l l e g o r y . RUDYARD KIPLING As much as any writer of his generation, K i p l i n g captured within the broad range of h i s s t o r i e s a s t r i k i n g conception of wild and domestic animal l i f e . This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true of the Jungle Books which have become an accepted c l a s s i c of t h e i r kind, and which have an appeal wider than the phrase 'children's animal s t o r i e s ' suggests. But K i p l i n g ' s l i t e r a r y i n t e r e s t i n animals i s not narrowly r e s t r i c t e d ; throughout a long w r i t i n g l i f e h i s use of animals to focus the reader's at t e n t i o n towards broad and g often s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l themes remains consistent. Dr. J . K. Jamiluddin has outlined some of the q u a l i t i e s of the Indian 9 conception of animal l i f e that K i p l i n g would have been aware of. In every-day Indian l i f e i t was impossible to remain unaware of the p e c u l i a r l y strong symbolic value that Indians put on c e r t a i n animals. The cow, the elephant, the cobra, and many more, were a l l considered d i v i n e l y important and 18 representative of c e r t a i n values. Animals were an important part of Indian r e l i g i o n , and i t i s u n l i k e l y that K i p l i n g would have been ignorant of the s t r i k i n g symbolic q u a l i t i e s a t t r i b u t e d to them. S i m i l a r l y , India i n the l a t e 19th Century was s t i l l very much a f r o n t i e r country i n which the conquest of wild animal nature was far from complete. Snakes and b i g cats were s t i l l a threat to communities i s o l a t e d from the large c i t i e s . Both as a boy, and then l a t e r as a j o u r n a l i s t , K i p l i n g would have been aware of these forces present i n India. D i r e c t experience of the Indian conception of animal l i f e would not have been the only formative influence on the young K i p l i n g . He would also have had easy access to the r i c h Indian t r a d i t i o n of the ajiimal fable as i t i s r e f l e c t e d i n the P a n c h a - T a n t r a . T h e purpose of t h i s fable t r a d i t i o n , s i m i l a r to the Aesopic v a r i e t y , i s to elucidate an e t h i c a l maxim through a simple demonstration of animal l i f e . Doubtless, Ki p l i n g ' s nurses and servants would have r e l a t e d to him the very many animal s t o r i e s common to the strong o r a l f o l k - l o r e t r a d i t i o n of India. But K i p l i n g ' s knowledge of Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e would not have been r e s t r i c t e d to the Indian t r a d i t i o n s . Like many Anglo-Indian chil d r e n , he was sent back to England for h i s education and he records i n h i s autobiography that there he became f a m i l i a r with such m o r a l i s t i c animal tales as Mrs. Gatty's Parables from Nature. We have noted already that Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e most often has a moral edge, and thus to an intensely moral man l i k e K i p l i n g t h i s kind of l i t e r -ature had an obvious appeal. The various moral q u a l i t i e s of i n t e g r i t y , duty, action, love, etc., are represented very f o r c e f u l l y by the animals of such s t o r i e s as "Garm - A Hostage", "Below the Mill-Dam", "The Maltese 19 Cat", and of course Jungle Books. Here we see the appropriateness of animal characters which_,because of t h e i r often simple natures^may happily embody a single abstract q u a l i t y . We also see, however, that such q u a l i t i e s are given concrete form within animal behaviour that i s quite r e a l i s t i c , and that abstract human v i r t u e s have analogues i n the r e a l world of Nature. Ki p l i n g ' s animal s t o r i e s also r e i n f o r c e some of h i s more overt a t t i t u d e s , e s p e c i a l l y i n p o l i t i c s . Take for example his well-known ins i s t e n c e on the necessary r o l e and value of the B r i t i s h Empire. There i s no escaping the f a c t that K i p l i n g was an i m p e r i a l i s t , but i t i s important to r e a l i s e that he considered the rule of Empire a temporary moral duty, implying neither r a c i a l nor c u l t u r a l s u p e r i o r i t y . In recent years, the work of Bonamy Dobree, Louis G i l b e r t , and Shamsul Islam, has done to much to c l a r i f y K i p ling's view of Empire, and i n the l i g h t of these studies i t i s evident that l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y has played f a s t and loose with K i p l i n g ' s reputation. K i p l i n g ' s insistence on the r o l e of Empire, together with the c o r o l l a r y of an anti-democratic viewpoint, manifests i t s e l f i n K i p l i n g ' s animal f i c t i o n . Stories such as "A Walking Delegate", "The Mother Hive", and once again the Jungle Books, exemplify such points of view with great c l a r i t y . K i p l i n g ' s moral and p o l i t i c a l ideas coincide with h i s views on society, s o c i a l order, and law. His most common insistence concerns the need for law to regulate human behaviour. This perhaps stems from h i s early experience with cruel psychological i n s t a b i l i t y , and perhaps i t was t h i s that l e d K i p l i n g to be so conscious of what Alan Sandison has c a l l e d "the wider Necessity which has decreed that man s h a l l l i v e forever at the edge of the p i t , snatching h i s i d e n t i t y from the limbo of non-existence which l i e s at 20 h i s feet"." 1^ Thus, Kipling's l i f e - l o n g desire to a l l y himself with such in-groups as Masonry, Mithraism, Empire, and even the Wolf-pack, s t r i k e s one as a constituent part of h i s very personality. In a rather d i f f e r e n t context, Noel Annan has suggested that K i p l i n g should be seen within the 13 framework of 19th Century Sociology, since h i s p r i n c i p l e i n t e r e s t s l a y i n uncovering the s o c i a l bases of human l i f e and happiness rather than i n exploring human psychology and human i n t e r a c t i o n . In the Jungle Books we f i n d a de t a i l e d exploration of Ki p l i n g ' s view of a society c o n t r o l l e d by a subtle system of law. The jungle i s an environment that i s offered to the reader as a moral paradigm, and within t h i s the animals exemplify character 'types'. We discern i n Kip l i n g ' s greater i n t e r e s t i n s o c i a l ideas and themes an i n t e r e s t that i s p e c u l i a r l y susceptible to Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e , and e s p e c i a l l y the fable. Animal p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n i s e n t i r e l y appropriate to the needs of an a r t i s t who i s not p r i m a r i l y concerned with human i n d i v i d u a l i t y , since the s i m p l i f i e d human t r a i t exemplified " i n an animal constitutes the idea that he wishes to propose without the often cumbersome interference of r e a l human beings. This may constitute a c r i t i c i s m of K i p l i n g , and c e r t a i n l y many c r i t i c s have remarked on his f a i l u r e to create fully-rounded characters. But put i n the perspective of h i s c o n t r o l l i n g s o c i a l , moral, and p o l i t i c a l ideas, h i s constant recourse to Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e , and i t s attendant mode of personifying animals, should be seen as a t a c t i c a l and e n t i r e l y appropriate method. Nor should i t be assumed that a r e l i a n c e on Bestiary forms of l i t e r a r y 21 expression n e c e s s a r i l y implies i n f e r i o r l i t e r a r y q u a l i t y . The moral and s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l perspectives from which we must view K i p l i n g ' s animal f i c t i o n are not the only ones a v a i l a b l e to us. We must remember that K i p l i n g considered himself an a r t i s t before anything e l s e . In f a c t , two of h i s animal s t o r i e s , "The B u l l that Thought", and "Teem - A Treasure Hunter", deal very d i r e c t l y with the concept and value of a r t and a r t i s t r y . K i p l i n g ' s father was an a r t i s t , and K i p l i n g himself frequently stayed with the Burne Jones' to whom he was r e l a t e d . K i p l i n g wrote many of h i s s t o r i e s with painstaking care and a r t i s t i c craftmanship, and i t i s t h i s q u a l i t a t i v e aspect of K i p l i n g ' s Bestiary that has been ignored. I do not mean to imply that K i p l i n g ' s animal s t o r i e s are always uniformly successful or that they are wholly free from sentimentality. What may be challenged i s Edmund 14 Wilson's a s s e r t i o n that K i p l i n g ' s "increasing addiction ... to animals" necessa r i l y implies degenerating l i t e r a r y q u a l i t i e s . In K i p l i n g ' s f i c t i o n for c h i l d r e n we f i n d very f o r c e f u l examples of his extensive r e l i a n c e on Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e . We should f i r s t say that the l i n e between adult and children's l i t e r a t u r e i s sometimes notoriously t h i n , and t h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y so with K i p l i n g . For K i p l i n g i s unique i n that h i s ideas often have a way of manifesting themselves i m p l i c i t l y , i r r e s p e c t i v e of the more ostensible themes. Thus, i n the Jungle Books, which on the surface are a children's romance of animal and jungle l i f e , the larger concerns of S o c i a l law and of Empire become evident as a l l e -g o r i c a l presences. I t should be added that i t i s i n the subtle nature of K i p l i n g ' s a r t for allegory to be f e l t as implied idea without ever a c t u a l l y being d e l i b e r a t e l y a l l e g o r i c a l i n the f u l l sense. In a work l i k e 22 Dryden's "The Hind and the Panther", animals represent either the church of Rome or the church of England. In the Jungle Books, however, animals embody abstract q u a l i t i e s while at the same time r e t a i n i n g a sense of t h e i r animal selves. In t h i s way, K i p l i n g ' s animals are not merely l i f e l e s s a l l e g o r i c a l symbols, and they cannot be thus reduced. Although K i p l i n g ' s Just So Stories were not published u n t i l 1902, i t i s t h i s sample of h i s Bestiary that a reader i s f i r s t l i k e l y to encounter. These simple narratives have no greater pretensions than to entertain and i n s t r u c t young c h i l d r e n , but i t i s worthwhile pointing out that even i n t h i s most elementary of Ki p l i n g ' s works the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c moral viewpoints are there. A good example of the technique may be found i n "How the Camel Got h i s Hump". Through a v i v i d evocation of the animal's inherent l a z i n e s s , K i p l i n g gives an anatomical explanation for the emergence of i t s hump. To make up for the work that the Camel has not done, a magician creates i t s hump i n which water can be storedjthus allowing the Camel to work f o r longer periods without r e s t . In addition, K i p l i n g makes i t p l a i n that hard work i s the e f f e c t i v e remedy for the moral f a u l t of bad-tempered l a z i n e s s . The cure for t h i s i l l i s not to s i t s t i l l , Or frowst with a book by the f i r e ; But to take a large hoe and a shovel also, And dig t i l l you gently perspire. The emergence of the moral value of work here asserts i t s e l f . In an e a r l y review of the Just So S t o r i e s , G. K. Chesterton remarked that K i p l i n g draws h i s animals "not as types and members i n an elaborate scheme of knowledge, but as walking portents, things marked by extravagant and peculiar features"."^ This pertinent comment points out quite c o r r e c t l y 23 the masterly way i n which K i p l i n g creates h i s animal characters. Though they have' a s i g n i f i c a n c e as moralised 'types', they are also i n d i v i d u a l i s e d within an imaginative n a r r a t i v e free from c l o y i n g reductivism. This i s a qu a l i t y not unique to the animals of the Just So St o r i e s . The Jungle Books were written mostly i n Vermont between 1893-95, and they represent perhaps the best known example of Ki p l i n g ' s animal a r t . Their appeal i s most c e r t a i n l y broad and i t i s f a r from uncommon to f i n d that adults as w e l l as chi l d r e n f i n d i n t h e i r breadth of imp l i c a t i o n some-thing that warrants serious consideration. L i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m should be e s p e c i a l l y interested i n them since here we f i n d some of Ki p l i n g ' s most engaging w r i t i n g . In h i s autobiography, K i p l i n g records that once he had blocked out the main ideas of the animal s t o r i e s "the pen took charge, 16 and I watched i t begin to write s t o r i e s about Mowgli and animals ..." K i p l i n g believed that he wrote h i s best when h i s 'Daemon' took charge of hi s pen i n the manner j u s t r e l a t e d and i f we take the popularity of Jungle  Books to be any measure, he was surely r i g h t . There are two Jungle Books, the f i r s t published i n 1894 and the second a year l a t e r . In addition to these volumes, the story "In the Rukh" should also be included since i t too i s about Mowgli. The Mowgli s t o r i e s are only a part of the whole and these are frequently interrupted by p l a i n animal s t o r i e s , a l l of which describe the world from what purports to be an animal's eye-view. From t h i s animal perspective and from the engaging sense of l i v i n g e x c l u s i v e l y i n an animal society, we gain an i n t e r e s t i n g vantage point on ' what values K i p l i n g believed to be ce n t r a l to a s o c i a l community. This i s effected i n p a r t i c u l a r through the jux t a p o s i t i o n of 24 human and animal s o c i e t i e s . Within t h i s framework, i t i s apparent that K i p l i n g very f i r m l y supports h i s animals. The animals themselves usually t y p i f y some e t h i c a l q u a l i t y or i t s opposite, and to t h i s extent the t r a d i t i o n a l fable form i s followed. But i t should be said that the d e t a i l s and environment i n which these moral 'types' play out t h e i r l i v e s i s wholly n a t u r a l i s t i c and i s far removed from the terse animal fable we recognise i n the Aesopic model. The jungle, together with the animals i n i t , are presented as i f they are r e a l . Of course, the animals are heavily anthropomorphised. But when they act out t h e i r i n s t i n c t s , preying on one another, or following the urge of the Springtime madness, we are i n l i t t l e doubt that they are r e a l animals as they may be observed, "with passions and i n s t i n c t s which seem to be r e a l l y those of the animals we are seeing"."^ In the f i r s t Jungle Book, the three Mowgli s t o r i e s serve as a Bildungs-roman i n which the young man-cub grows up, learning through hard experience the nature of moral good and e v i l . "Kaa's Hunting" deals with t h i s theme very d i r e c t l y : Mowgli i s abducted by the Bandar-log, a group of monkeys who t y p i f y for the other animals. lawlessness and mindless chaos. F i n a l l y , Mowgli i s rescued through the s e l f l e s s actions of Bagheera, Baloo, and Kaa. This whole escapade, written with a l i v e l y f l o u r i s h that secures a very r e a l sense of f i c t i o n a l place and character, acts as a moral lesson-i n - a c t i o n for the inexperienced boy. The v i r t u e s displayed by the three rescuing animals are t y p i f i e d i n most of the animals who appear i n the non-Mowgli t a l e s . Most often, these v i r t u e s are duty, s e l f l e s s n e s s , service, an adherence to law, and a respect and love for one's comrades. The non-Mowgli s t o r i e s r e i n f o r c e these values and imply that the highly anthro-25 pomorphised animals of the Mowgli seri e s are but exaggerations of q u a l i t i e s observable i n Nature . ' / Within the f a b l i s t i c context of the Mowgli s t o r i e s , the great Bagheera represents bravery, courage, and f i e r c e action; he i s Mowgli's clos e s t companion. Baloo the Bear represents wisdom; i t i s h i s r o l e to teach Mowgli the ways of the jungle. In Hindu mythology the Elephant i s one represen-ta t i o n of Ganesha, the god of wisdom, and thus the mighty Hathi symbolizes wisdom and i n t e l l e c t u a l achievement. Kaa stands for prudence and i n t e l l i g e n c e . The Seeonee wolf-pack are to be seen as a sin g l e unit which represents the force of f r a t e r n a l a s s o c i a t i o n and the s o c i a l advantages of comradeship. The animals thus f a r described represent the morally good forces of the jungle. Although they predominate they are not the whole story. E v i l a l s o e x i s t s and i n t h i s sense K i p l i n g ' s jungle takes on associations w i t h " 18 Garden of Eden, with Mowgli perhaps as the f i r s t Adam. I t i s a part of Mowgli's moral education of course that he should taste hate as well as love, discord alongside unity, and that he should learn to discriminate between these co n t r a r i e s . Shere Khan, the lame t i g e r , i s Mowgli's most serious antagonist since from the beginning he regards Mowgli as h i s ' k i l l ' . He t y p i f i e s brute animal power and f e r o c i t y , but devoid of the moral consciousness that binds the lawful animals. Because he does not conform to the c a r e f u l l y a r t i c u l a t e d d i c t a t e s of the 'Law of the Jungle' he i s Mowgli's i n e v i t a b l e moral foe. The Bandar-log s i m i l a r l y oppose the 'Law' i n that they represent a d i r e c t a n t i thesis to the wolf-pack. Both the monkeys and the wolves i d e n t i f y themselves as a group, but the former are seemingly incapable of holding onto the moral pattern of behaviour that 26 governs the wolves. In what may be a conscious inversion of Darwin's so-called "Monkey Theory" K i p l i n g depicts the Simian group as i n f e r i o r i n p r a c t i c a l wisdom to the 'lower' animals. (Of course, the word "wisdom" here takes on quite a s p e c i f i c meaning, and contrasts sharply with the human measure of I.Q.) The Bandar-log are depicted as devoid of the strong i n s t i n c t s which create the s p i r i t of i n t e g r i t y common amongst the 'free' animals. It should be apparent to anyone f a m i l i a r with the Jungle Books , that to extract from each of the animal characters the moral q u a l i t y that they most notably represent i s to be overly reductive. I t i s cl e a r that whereas moral q u a l i t i e s are exemplified by." an animal, that animal's whole i d e n t i t y i s l a r g e r than i t s m o r a l i s t i c importance. To characterise a figure l i k e Bagheera by o f f e r i n g a few m o r a l i s t i c synonyms i s to have said very l i t t l e about the character that he i s . He i s not a moral 'counter' i n the way f o r example Dryden's Hind and Panther are. I t i s th i s q u a l i t y of the a l i v e realness of an animal that distinguishes K i p l i n g ' s Bestiary as i t i s seen i n the Jungle Books, and th i s achievement i s i n e x t r i c a b l y l i n k e d with K i p l i n g ' s success as a wr i t e r of l i v e l y a c t i o n . Consider for example t h i s passage: To move down so cunningly that never a l e a f s t i r r e d ; to wade knee-deep i n the roaring shallows that drown a l l noise from behind; to drink, looking backward over one shoulder, every muscle ready for the f i r s t desperafe bound of keen t e r r o r ; to r o l e on the sandy margin, and return, wet-muzzled and well-plumped out, to the admiring herd, was a thing that t a l l - a n t l e r e d young bucks took a delight i n , p r e c i s e l y because they knew that at any moment Bagheera or Shere Khan might leap upon them and bear them down. 19 27 Put t h i s way, the predatory i n s t i n c t s become a kind of game i n which l i f e i s given added zest through the ever-present danger of death. Violence i s the natural way of l i f e i n the jungle, and here i t i s given an almost aesthetic appeal, whether t a l l - a n t l e r e d young bucks r e a l l y experience l i f e l i k e t h i s i s an open question. We cannot know how a young buck's mind works, or even i f he has a mind that can be s a i d to work at a l l , but h i s behaviour gives r i s e quite spontaneously to an anthro-pomorphic understanding of h i s experience. In many cases, d i r e c t obser-vation and appreciation of animal behaviour gives r i s e to something more akin to envy and even sympathetic i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . These are the kinds of response that K i p l i n g himself obviously f e l t and which he means the reader to f e e l too; i t i s t h i s kind of q u a l i t y which r e l i e v e s the f i c t i o n of overly s i m p l i s t i c moralisms. The second Jungle Book s t r i k e s the reader as at once more elevated than the f i r s t . I t i s as i f K i p l i n g only became aware of the larger p o s s i b i l i t i e s of h i s jungle romance once he had written several of the s t o r i e s . I t i s with the second Jungle Book that the larger s o c i e t a l a l l e g o r i e s , already hinted at i n the f i r s t , become more predominant and force themselves on the reader i n more delib e r a t e ways. I t should be remembered, however, that the kinds of l i t e r a r y q u a l i t i e s already discussed continue to exert a powerful pressure. This must be understood as the ground-swell on which the larger issues ultimately r e l y . This more engaged seriousness may be gauged immediately by the very f i r s t story, "How Fear Came". This i s the animal's version of the b i b l i c a l Genesis, and we learn that t h i s account of the creation of the animals i s 28 d i r e c t l y involved with the e t h i c a l code that goes by the name of the 'Law of the Jungle'. We may note i n passing that K i p l i n g ' s use of t h i s phrase implies more than the usually accepted notion of the " s u r v i v a l of the f i t t e s t " within a Nature "red i n tooth and claw". Ce r t a i n l y , t h i s i s a part of the 'Law' and i n i t we detect very obvious Darwinian ideas. But to t h i s we must add the very powerful s o c i a l bonds that keep both the group and the i n d i v i d u a l strong within a l o v i n g and j u s t , that i s to say moral, environment. This a f f e c t i o n a t e and moral assumption i s implied within the animals' i n s t i n c t u a l behaviour, but for Mowgli i t must be learned. The Genesis and laws of the jungle animals are r e l a t e d by Hathi, who stands as a p a r a l l e l to Moses. The occasion for r e t e l l i n g t h i s Creation Myth i s the "water Truce" which i s c a l l e d and obeyed i n times of severe water shortage. The truce demands that no animal should k i l l or be k i l l e d at the water hole, and represents an example of the 'Law of the Jungle' i n operation. Hathi describes for a l l how once upon a time, before the i n e v i t a b l e f a l l , a l l the animals l i v e d i n peace and harmony. E v i l , death, and fear then entered the paradisal state and from that time chaos reigned. The Elephant-God, Tha, had then imposed the 'Law', a code which implies a s o c i a l covenant and which was a necessary force i n a f a l l e n world. The p a r a l l e l between t h i s scenario and the b i b l i c a l equivalent i s s t r i k i n g , and c l e a r l y an adult reader i s u n l i k e l y to miss the a s s o c i a t i o n . In t e r e s t i n g l y , Hathi describes the o r i g i n s of the world wholly i n Elephant terms, j u s t as humans read t h e i r o r i g i n s i n human contexts. K i p l i n g seems to be suggesting a subtle parody of human p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n , and the humorous aspects of t h i s parody are reinforced when the rather sarcerdotal Hathi i s 29 gently mocked by Mowgli and Bagheera. However, the wisdom that Hathi imparts i s taken very s e r i o u s l y , except by Shere Khan who attempts to deride i t . I t i s generally recognised that s u r v i v a l i n a harsh and d i f f i -c u l t world depends upon s o c i a l l y appropriate checks and balances. The 'Law' i t s e l f i s given a f u l l poetic i t e r a t i o n that concludes the episode. Now t h i s i s the law of the jungle - as o l d and as true as the sky; And the wolf that s h a l l keep i t may prosper, but the wolf that s h a l l break i t must die. As the creeper that g i r d l e s the tree trunk the law runneth forward and back -For the strength of the pack i s the wolf, and the strength of the wolf i s the pack. Now these are the laws of the jungle, and many and mighty are they. But the head and the hoof of the law and the haunch and the hump i s Obey! (pp.102-105) What the whole notion of 'Law' means to K i p l i n g as a s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l force cannot be understood from the Jungle Books alone. Shamsul Islam has written a f u l l - l e n g t h study of K i p l i n g ' s concept of 'Law' i n which i t s 20 c e n t r a l i t y i s more than amply demonstrated. But the Jungle Books do stand as the si n g l e most f u l l y a r t i c u l a t e d instance of t h i s concept, and fo r t h i s reason alone deserve f u l l c r i t i c a l a p p r a i s a l . For within t h e i r romance-like parameters they express many of the values that together create a u n i f i e d idea of a genuine s o c i a l cohesiveness. The s i n g l e thread that l i n k s a l l of K i p l i n g ' s s o c i a l ideas i s the emphasis on stable community. But t h i s community, i t i s repeatedly stressed, must be fought for and won, i n much the same way that Mowgli must overcome e v i l and thus j o i n the 'free' animals of the jungle who preserve t h e i r community through a r e l i a n c e 30 on 'Law'. Even the act of k i l l i n g other species, a l l except man that i s , i s seen as good when undertaken within the lawful code which s t i p u l a t e s that a k i l l i s made out of need and never out of a desire to destroy. This stern morality,however, finds i t s natural c o r o l l a r y i n the p r i n c i p l e q u a l i t y that endears both Mowgli and the reader to the jungle animals: l o v i n g a f f e c t i o n . The strength of t h i s a f f e c t i o n i s f e l t throughout many of the s t o r i e s and i t acts as the s o c i a l bonding agent which lends v i r t u e to an otherwise apparently ruthless world. I have been suggesting a l l along that the humanized view of animals and of animal society we are offered i n the Jungle Books i s e s s e n t i a l l y p o s i t i v e and suggests something of a s o c i a l paradigm. This strong f e e l i n g i s i n t e n s i f i e d because of our w i l l i n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the half-animal half-human Mowgli. Through h i s experiences with the other humans, the society of the jungle animals takes on added v i r t u e s and strengths. In the s t o r i e s "Tiger, Tiger", "Letting i n the Jungle", and "The King's Ankus", we see cl e a r examples of the i n f e r i o r i t y of human society when compared with that of the animals. We have noted e a r l i e r that the Jungle  Books serve an educational function for Mowgli, and hence f or the reader. Mowgli a f t e r a l l i s human, and there i s a constant i n s i s t e n c e that man always returns to man. I m p l i c i t i n t h i s l i e s the notion that the values Mowgli has learned i n the jungle w i l l l a t e r be taken back into the human world. Mowgli w i l l be an inverse kind of Missionary, bringing stern but good news from the lower animals. In t h i s , Mowgli tends to be a Rousseauesquefigure, the natural man i n an i d e a l state of Nature. He i s also perhaps a Darwinistic Ur-man who ascends from the jungle into f u l l 31 humanity. However, the ascension i s here i r o n i c i n that the glimpses of the human world we are offered suggest more of a descent. Becoming a Park Ranger c e r t a i n l y seems a lame f a l l i n g - o f f a f t e r h i s l i f e i n the jungle. Mowgli's involvement with humans, p a r t i c u l a r l y those of the neighbor-ing v i l l a g e s , begins i n "Tiger, Tiger!". Upon entering the v i l l a g e he i s immediately accepted by Messua and her husband as t h e i r long-lost c h i l d . Man's d u p l i c i t y i s immediately revealed when the l o c a l p r i e s t claims the glory (and the reward too he hopes) of recovering the long-lost son. But from the s t a r t Mowgli does not f i t i n t o the v i l l a g e l i f e . He d i r e c t l y confronts Buldeo, the head man of the v i l l a g e , charging that the great hunter i s l a r g e l y ignorant of the jungle about which he proposes to teach the v i l l a g e c h i l d r e n . In p a r t i c u l a r , Mowgli objects to him speaking of "ghosts and gods and goblins" that l i v e within the animals. He argues that animals are free "from the s p i r i t s which the v i l l a g e r s project onto them. To prove h i s point and to show his natural s u p e r i o r i t y over Buldeo, Mowgli s k i l l f u l l y organizes Shere Khan's assassination. This a c t i o n i s performed with a great deal of i n t e l l i g e n t and even s c i e n t i f i c cunning. But Buldeo manages to persuade the other v i l l a g e r s that t h i s feat was not the product of natural forces of ordinary but potent i n t e l l i g e n c e , but was effected through the arts of s i n i s t e r magic. Mowgli i s stoned and turned away from the v i l l a g e society. With Shere Khan's death and the subsequent hatred that Buldeo f e e l s f o r Mowgli, K i p l i n g e f f e c t s a subtle s h i f t of perspective and the threat to Mowgli's moral education becomes assumed within the force of dark ignorance 32 and b l i n d s u p e r s t i t i o n that Buldeo represents. The moral problem becomes now the inherent threat of prejudiced i r r a t i o n a l i t y before which the enlightened e t h i c of r a t i o n a l s o c i a l laws must be established. I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t of course that Buldeo i s an Indian native whose sense of i r r a t i o n a l w i t chcraft stands i n the way of genuine moral and s o c i a l enlightenment. This problem of the clash between the c o n f l i c t i n g ideologies of the East and the West i s to be found i n greater depth i n "The Bridge-Builders". For the present i t i s s u f f i c i e n t to stress that the lawless e v i l of Shere Khan i s transposed i n t o an Indian concept of an ignorant denial of the natural 'Law'. In both the animal and human worlds, K i p l i n g gives examples of good and e v i l , and i n both Mowgli i s the moral barometer. But i t seems c l e a r that i n the human world the bad outweighs the good. I t i s true that Messua and her husband represent morally good forces, but t h e i r s i t u a t i o n i s p e c u l i a r and w i l l be dealt with s h o r t l y . I t i s also true that Mowgli f i r s t entered the v i l l a g e because the jungle animals rejected him, thus p a r a l l e l i n g h i s l a t e r r e j e c t i o n from the v i l l a g e . But d£ should be remembered that h i s r e j e c t i o n from the jungle came about mostly because of the animals' understanding that man always returns to man. The Indian natives have no such excuse; as a whole they are e a s i l y b u l l i e d into b e l i e v i n g that not only Mowgli but also Messua and her husband are i m p l i -cated i n black-magic. As a consequence, they intend to burn Messua and her husband at the stake. The threat of t h i s murder prompts the a c t i o n of the marvelous story "Letting i n the Jungle" i n which the animals force the v i l l a g e r s to abandon t h e i r homes. This whole incident i s rendered with 33 poised c o n t r o l ; the sense of the p h y s i c a l encroachment of the jungle i s superbly done and breathes l i f e into the f i c t i o n a l world of Nature. I t i s here too that the theme of revenge appears and with i t the f u l l e s t expression of Mowgli's anti-human sentiments: Thou knowest the v i l l a g e of the Man-pack that cast me out? They are i d l e , and c r u e l ; they play with t h e i r mouths, and they do not k i l l the weaker for food, but for sport. When they are f u l l - f e d they would throw t h e i r own breed into the Red Flower. This I have seen. I t i s not well that they should l i v e here anymore. I hate them!. (p.173) Human society becomes unworthy of a place i n the jungle and the animals thus drive them away. The animal society, rough, j u s t , and eminently a l i v e , acts as a moral p o l i c e force to eradicate e v i l . It i s a mark of Mowgli's moral education that he recognises the cancer that the v i l l a g e r s represent and thus e f f e c t s t h e i r expulsion. Here as nowhere e l s e , K i p l i n g reveals himself to be wholly on the animals' side i n t h e i r e r a d i c a t i o n of the humans. Through them he finds a way of suggesting an adequately vigorous society and therefore a moral force capable of lambasting a humanity that misunderstands Nature. Yet we must i n t e r j e c t a caveat here since K i p l i n g i s c a r e f u l to make a d i s t i n c t i o n between d i f f e r e n t kinds of human. The d i s t i n c t i o n i s l a r g e l y 'on r a c i a l grounds, between the native Indians and the strange White Men who l i v e f ar o f f and who seem to l i v e by rules of law and j u s t i c e s i m i l a r to those of the jungle animals. We should also remember that Mowgli i s white and i t i s suggested that he predominates amongst the animals because of the mysterious powers of genetic leadership. 'And what pack are they?' said Mowgli. 'I do not know. They be white, and i t i s said that they govern a l l the land, 34 and do not s u f f e r people to burn or beat each other without witness. I f we can get t h i t h e r tonight we l i v e . Otherwise we die'. (p.160) The earnest exhortation of the l a s t clause suggests perhaps the idea of B r i t i s h c i v i l i z a t i o n that K i p l i n g wished to imply, but i t should be pointed out that t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of Imperial j u s t i c e i s somewhat equivocal. Are we led to imply that the B r i t i s h only allow people to burn and beat each other i n the presence of witnesses? Despite t h i s small equivocation, i t i s made abundantly c l e a r that i n escaping from the Indian v i l l a g e r s and seeking protection from the B r i t i s h , Messua and her husband are not only saving t h e i r l i v e s but are also making a symbolic journey from one concept of human l i f e to another, from lawless s u p e r s t i t i o n to lawful order. As i f to make the symbolism even more complete, they are protected throughout the night by the jungle animals. Thus, a transference from Indian ideology to a B r i t i s h one i s effected through the agency of the animals, and t h i s i n microcosm i s the method of the whole all e g o r y implied i n Mowgil's moral education. The way to moral and s o c i a l enlightenment i s the education learned through the ways of animals. I m p l i c i t i n th i s of course, i s a p a r t l y negative view of Indian s o c i e t y . I t i s characterised, probably u n f a i r l y , as the epitome of a l l the forces that stand i n the way of moral law and r a t i o n a l enlightenment. From the English point of view there i s doubtless some truth i n t h i s c a r i c a t u r e . K i p l i n g experienced f i r s t hand how d i f f i c u l t i t sometimes was to enforce B r i t i s h standards of e t h i c a l conduct i n a society whose values l a y i n other areas. That K i p l i n g believed i t was possible for th i s change i n mental habit and s e n s i b i l i t y to occur i s 35 perhaps indicated i n the journey that Messua and her husband make. But i t should be said that the husband i s very u n w i l l i n g to give up the ways of the v i l l a g e and the symbolic journey i s thus only a p a r t i a l escape. The operative analogy between the B r i t i s h and the jungle animals i s I think c l e a r l y implied - " i n the Jungle Books, and through t h i s subtle and perhaps only p a r t l y conscious transference the Bestiary form of l i t e r a r y expression i s seen to be e s p e c i a l l y e f f e c t i v e . I t i s of course arguable that K i p l i n g ' s account of jungle l i f e i s romanticized out of a l l recognizable proportion, and that as a consequence the analogy breaks down. However, t h i s assumes that K i p l i n g believed the Imperial presence i n India to be an embodiment of a l l moral v i r t u e . There i s l i t t l e doubt that he did not think t h i s . Rather, i n both the jungle and the Empire he was projecting an i d e a l i s e d notion of these forces. However, both of these idealisms were founded on some amount of realism, whether i t be the already established achievements of the Empire or the d i r e c t observation of the v i t a l , n a tural l i f e within animals. We have remarked e a r l i e r that K i p l i n g was not endeared to Democracy or indeed to l i b e r a l s and l i b e r a l i s m . This i s one aspect of K i p l i n g ' s thinking that has been thoroughly discussed, and often has been the grounds on which he has been dismissed as an a r t i s t . In recent years, e f f o r t s have been made to r e d i r e c t the course of K i p l i n g c r i t i c i s m , and t h i s has sometimes been attempted by.. the argument that K i p l i n g was an a r t i s t and not a 21 p o l i t i c a l writer of d i d a c t i c t r a c t s . Besides, the argument runs, i f K i p l i n g was an anti-democratic writer then of course he stands alongside such contemporaries as Yeats, E l i o t , Lawrence, and Pound, a l l of whom shared 36 a s i m i l a r scepticism about Democracy's p r i n c i p l e s and practices.*"" Most c e r t a i n l y none of these writers could be described as a L i b e r a l , and to t h i s extent K i p l i n g should be counted amongst t h e i r ranks. But i t would be wrong I think for K i p l i n g scholars to take too much comfort i n t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n since i t i s more apparent than r e a l . Although a l l of these writers expressed anti-democratic sentiments, i t should be remembered that by and large they eschewed the party p o l i t i c s of t h e i r day and rejected the whole way of l i f e that a ' p o l i t i c a l ' perspective demands. K i p l i n g , on the other hand, d e l i b e r a t e l y aligned himself with Imperial and conservative points of view i n a very partisan way. Most notably, he made i t clear what his response was to such a phenomenon as World War I, and by ident-i f y i n g himself with people and views of the m i l i t a r i s t persuasion he opened himself up to the c r i t i c i s m that he was himself a M i l i t a r i s t , and a j i n g o i s t to boot. In t e r e s t i n g l y , George Orwell found K i p l i n g ' s w i l l i n g n e s s to stand up and be counted a commitment preferable to the mean-minded sneering of those he characterised as the "pansy l e f t " . C e r t a i n l y , there are aspects of K i p l i n g ' s honesty that we dismiss at the p e r i l of our consciences. Another d i s t i n c t i o n that should be drawn between K i p l i n g and the other anti-democrats i s that he alone sought to present h i s overt p o l i t i c a l views i n h i s f i c t i o n . He alone sought to use h i s a r t as an instrument of d i d a c t i c p o l i t i c a l argument. These views f i n d appropriate a r t i c u l a t i o n w ithin Kipling's Bestiary s t o r i e s . In p a r t i c u l a r , the animal fable suited his purposes and i n such tales as "A Walking Delegate", and "The Mother Hive" we see him draw upon t h i s ancient and popular t r a d i t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , " L i t t l e Foxes", though not a fable, addresses the problem of e f f e c t i v e 37 government within the opposing forms of Democracy and Autocracy. Before we look c l o s e l y at these s t o r i e s i t should be s a i d that a r t i s t i c accomp-lishment and fairness of p o l i t i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n are not always synonymous. Thus, i t i s not impossible to f i n d redeeming l i t e r a r y q u a l i t i e s i n an animal story wholly abhoirent i n i t s p o l i t i c a l sentiments. Mrs. Gatty's Parables from Nature contains a bee-fable s i m i l a r i n some respects to K i p l i n g ' s "The Mother Hive", and doubtless K i p l i n g knew Mandeville's Fable of the Bees. But as a keen a p i a r i s t K i p l i n g would hardly need to r e l y on these sources for the construction, replete with minute d e t a i l s , of h i s own bee-hive a l l e g o r y . This story i s something of a model of f i c t i o n a l economy, subtly suggesting a whole range of p o l i t i c a l statement. The bee-hive i s an obviously appropriate metaphor for an e f f i c i e n t b o d y - p o l i t i c since i t works on l i n e s of high e f f i c i e n c y and concentration of duty. In a sense, the bee-hive represents a paradigm of an organized and stable community, taking as i t s values work, obedience, and mechanical s e r v i c e . These values are those that we see operating within much of K i p l i n g ' s f i c t i o n . But "The Mother Hive" introduces t h i s paradigm only to reveal i t s peculiar v u l n e r a b i l i t y before the p o t e n t i a l destruction of the wax-moth. Once th i s i n f i l t r a t o r gains access to the hive, anarchy ensues and the s o c i a l commune dies. On the a l l e g o r i c a l l e v e l there i s l i t t l e room for confusion i n an understanding * of t h i s fable. I t represents an a l l e g o r i c a l demonstration of what may happen within a society once the defences of a nation are down and eloquent l i b e r a l - d e s t r o y e r s (or dark forces of other nations) are allowed to exert an influence. The wax-moth, who eventually 38 destroys the hive, gets i n when a bad-tempered fracas occurs at the entrance gate. Towards the end of the fable,however, i t i s made cl e a r that the moth got i n because the s o c i a l f a b r i c of the hive had already begun to di s i n t e g r a t e ; the i n i t i a l enemy was thus on the i n s i d e . To gauge the f u l l range of the fable's e f f e c t i v e n e s s , we must provide some b r i e f h i s t o r i c a l contexts. "The Mother Hive" was written i n 1908 at a time when European diplomacy was i n a highly unstable period. K i p l i n g was always a keen observer of current a f f a i r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y so when the Germans were involved, and i t was at t h i s time that Germany and the United 23 States were gaining economic s u p e r i o r i t y over Great B r i t a i n . The 1905 German invasion of Morocco brought the p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n to something of a head, since Morocco had previously been the C o l o n i a l s p i l l of B r i t a i n and France. This m i l i t a r y i n t r u s i o n therefore was f e l t very deeply as a dangerous infringement of c o l o n i a l r i g h t s , and t h i s f e e l i n g was doubtless p a r t i c u l a r l y strong amongst the B r i t i s h Imperial contingent. At t h i s time anti-German f e e l i n g was high anyway, and t h i s occurrence must have seemed l i k e a prophecy of future problems. The m i l i t a r y and economic threat that Germany began to impose brought about a salutory warning to B r i t a i n , and a popular c a l l to maintain the v i g i l was doubtless a frequent response. The defence at Tangiers, l i k e the guard at the entrance to the bee-hive, was l a x and as a r e s u l t the natural enemy took the opportunity to make a gain. The p a r a l l e l between "The Mother Hive" and the Moroccan c r i s i s i s quite obvious and i t i s probable that K i p l i n g was eit h e r consciously or unconsciously drawing upon t h i s incident ' i n h i s fable. There i s no external documentation that 39 i r r e f u t a b l y proves t h i s , and we need not overstate the p a r e l ] e i too much. But c e r t a i n l y the correspondence i s there to be seen and i t i s a corres-pondence that K i p l i n g ' s contemporaries would have seen immediately. The wax-moth then finds an external frame of reference within the • l a r g e r arena of European p o l i t i c s , but as we have already noted i t s entry was predetermined by an i n t e r n a l decay. To continue the p o l i t i c a l p a r a l l e l -ism, we might ask what i n t e r n a l p o l i t i c s represent t h i s decay? In 1904 Admiral S i r John Fisher became the F i r s t Sea Lord, and one of h i s f i r s t economic r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s was to remove from foreign and c o l o n i a l stations a l l B r i t i s h gun-boats. This kind of action quickly made the new Sea Lord very unpopular with the more conservative thinkers. Perhaps t h i s was one kind of i n t e r n a l change that K i p l i n g f e l t threatened the s e c u r i t y of the State and i n i t s e l f suggested an unwarranted l i b e r a l i s a t i o n . But perhaps of far greater s i g n i f i c a n c e than t h i s was the n a t i o n a l e l e c t i o n of 1906 i n which the L i b e r a l s backed by the new Labour Party, beat the Tories. K i p l i n g was not formally a member of the Conservative Party, even though he was offered an Edinburgh constituency. Though he refused the nomination, there i s l i t t l e doubt that by temperament and by p r i v a t e persuasion, K i p l i n g was a Tory. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , i n a l e t t e r he records that he refused the Edinburgh seat because he thought he could serve the Party better through hi s w r i t i n g . Such s t o r i e s as "The Mother Hive" doubtless are attempts to make t h i s support of conservative points of view apparent. The kind of threat that a t r a d i t i o n a l i s t and a Tory and an anti-democrat would see i n a Liberal/Labour v i c t o r y was the kind of threat that would lead to a weakening of nat i o n a l defences and n a t i o n a l morale. Looked at 40 from Ki p l i n g ' s point of view, the 1911 Miner's Strike was ample proof of h i s worst fears. Within the contexts of the h i s t o r i c a l f a c t s already mentioned, "The Mother Hive" takes on an added s i g n i f i c a n c e for us as i t undoubtedly did for K i p l i n g ' s generation. Today we must dig for the contemporary p o l i t i c a l f a c t s that at the time were common knowledge, and l a r g e l y because the issues of the day are no longer of any v i t a l i n t e r e s t to us the a l l e g o r i c a l l e v e l of the story must be a c t i v e l y sought. However, there i s one further aspect of the fable that must be discussed, or else i t would seem that K i p l i n g was o f f e r i n g no hopeful remedy. Within the bee-hive some bees remain l o y a l and r e j e c t the gushing overtures of the l i b e r a l wax-moth, f i n a l l y producing a new Queen to replace the old dying one. I t i s t h i s group of bees who f i n a l l y escape the purgative f i r e of the bee-keeper. These bees, and therefore by implication any remaining a c t i v e Tory M.P.'s, could salvage something from t h i s l o s t s i t u a t i o n and l i v e to recreate the l o s t s o c i a l order. This i s the f i n a l hope of the fable and i t i s c l e a r that K i p l i n g intends t h i s to be a r a l l y i n g c a l l to a l l the f a i t h f u l and l o y a l Tories. We know that K i p l i n g was openly c r i t i c a l of many Tory M.P.'s at t h i s time, charging that t h e i r i n e r t and lazy a t t i t u d e s enabled the more 25 productive l i b e r a l s to win the e l e c t i o n . There i s hope offered i n the p o s s i b i l i t y of Tory i n e r t i a r e s o l v i n g into Tory determination, and t h i s applies both to the home as well as the i n t e r n a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n . The success of t h i s fable, however, does not absolutely depend on our understanding of i t s p o l i t i c a l a l l e g o r y . Without i t "The Mother Hive" would be l e s s i n t e r e s t i n g but i t would s t i l l be e f f e c t i v e i n the general s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n i t obviously f a b u l i s e s . A good fable i s c a r e f u l to make 41 the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the l i t e r a l a c tion of the story and i t s a l l e g o r -i c a l implications as oblique as possible. If t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s made too close, then the a n a l o g i c a l nature of the fable i s jeopardised. Irrespective of the value or worth of i t s p o l i t i c a l edges, "The Mother Hive" avoids t h i s masterfully; the p o l i t i c a l a l l e g o r i e s are but echoes and reverberate a l l the stronger for t h e i r subtle presence. In t h i s , K i p l i n g shows himself to be more than adept at a l i t e r a r y form that on the surface seems elementary. We may d i s l i k e the p o l i t i c a l points of view, and c e r t a i n l y K i p l i n g ' s i n s u l t i n g way of evoking the wax-moth as an obsequiously slimy democrat reveals an a t t i t u d e that may give r i s e to some offence, but we should be ready to allow K i p l i n g h i s l i t e r a r y merits such as they are, and wherever we f i n d them. As a f i n a l word, i t should be said that although K i p l i n g ' s p r i n c i p a l i n t e r e s t i s with the underlying p o l i t i c a l points of view, t h i s i s effected through the l i v e l y and d e t a i l e d account of the l i f e of the bee-hive. Of course, the bees are not so v i v i d as the animals of the Jungle Books, and t h i s i s quite appropriate to the characterless uniformity of any bee-hive community. In h i s a r t i c l e on K i p l i n g , Edmund Wilson picked out for p a r t i c u l a r 26 i n s u l t the animal allegory "A Walking Delegate". He f e l t that t h i s was an example of K i p l i n g at h i s worst, K i p l i n g at h i s most p o l i t i c a l l y crass. There i s some v a l i d i t y to t h i s argument since t h i s story i s on one l e v e l a ruthless attack on the liberal-democrats. But i t should be s a i d that Wilson's argument i s mostly a p o l i t i c a l one; he obviously finds K i p l i n g ' s a t t i t u d e d i s t a s t e f u l and t h i s r e f l e c t s i t s e l f i n h i s l i t e r a r y a p p r a isal of the story. However, there are tonal aspects of "A Walking Delegate" that 42 seem to me to o f f - s e t t h i s wholly negative account of t h i s l i v e l y though provocative animal story. Writing s h o r t l y before h i s death, K i p l i n g described the genesis of "A Walking Delegate": "There was a small mob of other horses about the landscape, including a meek o l d s t a l l i o n with a permanently lame leg, who passed the evening of h i s days i n a horse-power machine which cut wood for us. I t r i e d to give something of the fun and flavour of those days i n a story c a l l e d 'A Walking Delegate' where a l l the characters are from 27 h o r s e - l i f e " . This passage provides an i n t e r e s t i n g a u t h o r i a l comment to compare with the kind of hard-minded c r i t i c i s m offered by Wilson, and i t i s c l e a r that the sense of i r e expressed by the l a t t e r bears l i t t l e resemblance to Ki p l i n g ' s almost bucolic comments. Of course, K i p l i n g was w r i t i n g many years a f t e r the i n i t i a l p u b l i c a t i o n of h i s story, but despite th i s hindsight perspective i t i s clear that he did not see "A Walking Delegate" as anything more than a light-hearted l i t e r a r y caprice. We know that the story i s i n fa c t a great deal more than that, but i t should not be assumed that because K i p l i n g i s scorning l i b e r a l i s m he i s wholly free from light-heartedness. As K i p l i n g noted, a l l the characters i n the story are horses, the l i t e r a r y embodiments of the c l o s e l y observed horses on h i s Vermont farm. Bearing i n mind K i p l i n g ' s habit of methodical observation, we watch the f i c t i o n a l horses take on anthropomorphic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s while at the same time preserving t h e i r fundamental sense of horsiness. As with a l l s t o r i e s that seek to delineate character, further evidence of i n d i v i d u a l personality i s conveyed through the nuances of dialogue. This technique i s very evident 43 i n "A Walking Delegate" where the animals' speech, plus t h e i r topics of conversation, combine with small instances of personal anecdote to create conceived characters. The story i s very much a dramatised yarn, and i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to see how K i p l i n g has attempted to employ American s t y l e s of speech, mostly country and negro d i a l e c t s , i n the presentation of events. The f a c t that t h i s story i s set i n America and i s e s s e n t i a l l y about Americans i s a point that we w i l l return to. The narrative describes a confrontation between the tamed, domesticated horses, with the wild, p o l i t i c i z e d r a d i c a l who wishes to s t i r up the f e e l i n g of r e v o l u t i o n within the others. This i s a theme that we recognise i n Orwell's Animal Farm, and Richard Cook has gone so f a r as to suggest 28 that Orwell had K i p l i n g ' s story i n mind when he wrote h i s f a b l e . Against the r a t i o n a l and democratic arguments of Boney the r a d i c a l , the domestic horses p o s i t the work-ethic and moral straightforwardness. The tame horses put up a front that can only be described as conservative, i f not reactionary, even though i t i s more than adequately demonstrated that Boney i s a hypocrite. Boney f a i l s to r a d i c a l i z e the other horses, r e c e i v i n g for his pains a sound drubbing from the Yeoman-like s t a l l i o n s . I t i s easy to discern ~ i n t h i s story a rather obvious p o l i t i c a l a l l e g o r y : the hard-working, responsible c i t i z e n s repudiate the devious liberal-democrat-anarchist i n the moral confidence that a l l r a d i c a l s are swindling hypocrites. This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s v a l i d , but only up to a point. As one reads the story i t i s d i f f i c u l t to take great offence since although the p o l i t i c a l c a r i c a t u r e of a l i b e r a l - r e f o r m e r i s there within Boney, t h i s e f f e c t i s only r e s i d u a l . I t i s as i f K i p l i n g ' s predominantly negative view 44 of l i b e r a l s exerts a force behind the action of the l o c a l horses r e j e c t i o n of an unsocial stranger, without ever becoming the p r i n c i p a l focus of i n t e r e s t . Besides, the al l e g o r y on t h i s l e v e l f i n a l l y breaks down since the domesticated horses are scarcely held up as moral paradigms. In f a c t , they are i m p l i c i t l y c r i t i c i z e d as much as - Boney, i n that they are des-cribed l a r g e l y as bumpkins who are l u d i c r o u s l y incapable of understanding Boney's sophisticated and disingenuous arguments. The tame horses most c e r t a i n l y work hard, but i n t h e i r case t h i s i s not seen as a wholly p o s i t i v e q u a l i t y since they so obviously thri v e on what i s nothing more than mindless servitude. "A Walking Delegate" i s an American story and i t i s i n t h i s context that K i p l i n g ' s proper focus l i e s . We have seen that both the r a d i c a l and the Vermont horses are r i d i c u l e d and s a t i r i z e d . At the time K i p l i n g wrote t h i s story he was experiencing some very serious problems with the Vermont people, p a r t i c u l a r l y with h i s brother-in-law. The matter a c t u a l l y reached the courts a f t e r an incident of assault, and s h o r t l y a f t e r that K i p l i n g was 29 to leave America somewhat embittered. I t should also be remembered that K i p l i n g t r a v e l l e d r i g h t across America and saw a sharp d i s t i n c t i o n between the West and the East, that i s to say between Boney and the native Vermont Horses. He admired the s p i r i t of energy he found i n the West, yet distruste< some of i t s lawless wildness. At the same time he found the Vermont people l a r g e l y lacking i n any vibrant or aggressive q u a l i t i e s . Within the contexts of these views on America, K i p l i n g ' s s a t i r i c a l depiction of h i s farmyard animals assumes an added s i g n i f i c a n c e . "A Walking Delegate" thus becomes a s a t i r e on America. Yet i t should not be forgotten that the p o l i t i c a l 45 attack on the r a d i c a l democrat i s s t i l l present, and to t h i s extent t h i s story i s a p o l i t i c a l f able. In e f f e c t , K i p l i n g i s k i l l i n g two b i r d s with one stone, and a l l within a Bestiary form. This i s important because i t provides a s h i e l d for K i p l i n g ' s views that serves to make his s a t i r i c a l and p o l i t i c a l edges humorous, and thus a l l the more e f f e c t i v e . Mistrust of the liberal-democrat reformer i s a part of the theme i n " L i t t l e Foxes". The foxes represent a kind of animal objective c o r r e l a t i v e around which the theme of e f f e c t i v e C o l o n i a l government revolves. It should be said that " L i t t l e Foxes" i s not an animal story proper, since i t uses foxes and more importantly fox-hunting only as analogues of lawlessness and order. The foxes themselves r a r e l y appear, and when they do i t i s only as spectators i n awe of the new regime of B r i t i s h Governors who have introduced fox-hunting i n t o the Gihon area of E t h i o p i a . The foxes symbolise the elements of rebelliousness and disorder that the B r i t i s h s t r i v e to eradicate. The process of fox-hunting comes to stand for good government as i t i s r e f l e c t e d i n a strong and Autocratic Governor. The extent to which the l o c a l v i l l a g e r s comply with the demands and needs of the fox-hunt determines how succ e s s f u l they w i l l be under English r u l e . If they stop up the fox-holes, that i s i f they attempt to stamp out disorder and disavow rebels, they w i l l be amply rewarded. This a c t i v e and e n t i r e l y appropriate analogy i s shown to work, and harmony and order i s established. (There i s some i n d i c a t i o n that t h i s i s 30 a true story as i t was re l a t e d to K i p l i n g on a journey.) This kind of governing works and everyone i s happy, except of course the foxes. One of these foxes i s a Mr. Groombride who as a l i b e r a l M.P. i s sent to Gihon to 46 probe rumours of torture and i l l i b e r a l a c t i v i t y . I r o n i c a l l y , t h i s l i b e r a l becomes equated with the lawless renegades that autocracy has managed to crush, and thus becomes a further embodiment of the c e n t r a l symbol of the fox. This symbolic t r a n s f i g u r a t i o n i s an i n t e r e s t i n g and successful part of the whole story and suggests something of the i n t r i c a c y of K i p l i n g ' s a r t . Less successful however i s the crude way that Groombride i s caricatured. He i s seen as a misguided Baboon who f i r s t makes a f o o l of himself and then attempts to bribe h i s way out of an unfortunate s i t u a t i o n . Pregnant with l i b e r a l p i e t i e s , Groombride i s exposed as a hollow and r i d i c u l o u s hypocrite. As a piece of fair-minded p o l i t i c a l argument " L i t t l e Foxes" leaves much to be desired. It i s crude and grossly s i m p l i s t i c , written wholly from an involved point of view. At the same time, i t should be added that the burlesque nature of Groombride's undoing i s not without a drole kind of humour. Of course, t h i s makes the p o l i t i c a l argument l e s s o f f e n s i v e yet at the same time reinforces i t i n the minds of those predisposed to a s i m i l a r p o l i t i c a l p o s i t i o n . F i n a l l y , we must say that, given the biased point of view, the metaphor of the fox and of fox-hunting i s an engaging and e n t i r e l y appropriate model for B r i t i s h C o l o n i a l r u l e and i s used with del i b e r a t e and crafted s k i l l . It works as an adequate way for K i p l i n g to reveal triumphantly the cowardly at t i t u d e s that i n h i s view lurk beneath a l l l i b e r a l surfaces. Within the character of the Governor i n " L i t t l e Foxes" we see an obvious demonstration of the kind of man necessary to the implementation of the ideas that lead to a healthy and e f f i c i e n t s ociety. In many ways the 47 Governor i s the human equivalent of animals l i k e Bagheera or Hathi, a l l of whom exercise authority and j u s t i c e i n an uncompromising way. S i m i l a r l y , the l o y a l bees of "The Mother Hive" t y p i f y the kind of character that i s to be held up for admiration. Examples of hero-types, usually men of act i o n , abound i n Kip l i n g ' s f i c t i o n and we recognise i n t h i s a necessary counterpart to the s o c i a l ideas he propounded. Aft e r a l l , s o c i a l laws mean nothing i f there are not capable men to implement them. Animal p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n i s c l e a r l y a useful way of presenting the i s o l a t e d values of humans, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f the w r i t e r i s more concerned with the idea than with character. Thus, i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g to see K i p l i n g r e l y on t h i s type of l i t e r a t u r e to express h i s points of view. We see t h i s of course i n almost a l l the animals we encounter i n K i p l i n g ' s oeuvre. There are some stories^however, which seem to have been written s o l e l y f or the purpose of descanting on p a r t i c u l a r moral q u a l i t i e s . Such a story i s "Garm - A Hostage", i n which the value of l o y a l a f f e c t i o n i s demonstrated i n a dog's r e l a t i o n s h i p to i t s master. The s t r i k i n g thing about t h i s p a r t i c u l a r story i s i t s a b i l i t y to stave o f f the ever-present threat of the sentimental pose, so possible i n any dog story. Instead, the n a r r a t i v e quite convinces the reader of the truth of the adage that a man's best f r i e n d i s h i s dog. Consider f o r example the uncluttered appraisal of a dog's p o t e n t i a l value: Dogs are at best no more than verminous vagrants, s e l f - s c r a t c h e r s , foul-feeders, and unclean by the law of Moses and Mohammed; but a dog with whom one l i v e s alone for at le a s t s i x months i n the year; a free thing, t i e d to you so s t r i c t l y by love that without you he w i l l not s t i r or exercise; a patient, temperate, humorous, wise soul, who knows your moods before you know them yourself, i s not a dog under any r u l i n g . 31 48 The kind of moral q u a l i t y given to the dog Garm receives a more extended treatment i n "The Maltese Cat". This story i s perhaps one of the better-known of K i p l i n g ' s animal s t o r i e s and i n i t we see exemp-l i f i e d some of the strong q u a l i t i e s of h i s use of a c t i v e language. The story describes a game of Polo between the 'Skidar' underdogs and the 'Archangel' champions. The d i s t i n c t i o n between these two r i v a l teams i s as crude as that between Groombride and the Governor, and we are obviously meant to see the b a t t l e as one between the m i l i t a r y haves and the have-nots. The action i s narrated wholly from the horses' point of view, and at no time does a human voice intrude. The horses on the 'Skidar' team, led by the eponymous Maltese Cat represent p a r t i c u l a r types of human being. The Cat himself i s determined and resolute, whereas a horse l i k e F a i z - U l l a h i s tempermental but given to bouts of stunning a t h l e t i c performance. On the whole, the 'Skidar' team t y p i f i e s the v i r t u e s of moral i n t e g r i t y and p h y s i c a l courage. At the l e v e l of p l o t , the story describes the 'Skidar' v i c t o r y over the better-equipped and better-prepared 'Archangels'. Against great odds the battered but plucky 'Skidar' horses p u l l through and win a l l honour and glory. This theme i n i t s e l f i s t r i t e , rather p a i n f u l l y so. However, the story i s saved from overbearing drabness by the nature of the unusual narrative point of view. The c e n t r a l focus i s not r e a l l y on the moral v i c t o r y so much as on the p h y s i c a l a c t i o n of the polo-match. We witness with some breathlessness the vigour and l i v e l i n e s s of K i p l i n g ' s language as he a r t i c u l a t e s the thrust and parry of the game. The balance and flow i s captured marvelously within the breathless comments that the 'Skidar' 49 horses make to each other. Very much l i k e t h e i r brothers i n "A Walking Delegate", these horses are e s s e n t i a l l y t a l k e r s , and as the game i s played we are provided with a running commentary on the action and i n t e r a c t i o n of the teams. I t i s t h i s fresh and unusual point of view which redeems the story's rather platitudinous moral theme. The e f f e c t of th i s l i v e l y n a r r a t i v e i s to lend to the t r i t e n e s s of the theme an a u t h e n t i c i t y which i t wouldn't otherwise have, thus making the argument for moral courage strangely e f f e c t i v e . However, i t should be said that K i p l i n g goes on to s p o i l h i s e f f e c t by g i l d i n g the l i l y - i n describing the Maltese Cat's triumphant but sentimental adulation i n the O f f i c e r ' s mess. The Jungle Books were set i n India and obviously r e f l e c t ways of natural l i f e impossible elsewhere. Ki p l i n g ' s association with India was profound and i t was there that many of h i s I m p e r i a l i s t i c attitudes became f u l l y a r t i c u l a t e d . We saw within the Jungle Books how an i d e o l o g i c a l antagonism was established between the native V i l l a g e r s and the B r i t i s h who l i v e d f a r o f f , and th i s obviously r e f l e c t e d something of the differences between East and West that made C o l o n i a l rule e s p e c i a l l y complex. This theme i s continued i n "The Bridge-Builders", i n which K i p l i n g explores the d i s t i n c t i o n that he saw between the business of work of the B r i t i s h i n India and the inherent conservatism of the Indian people. The animals that appear i n t h i s story are the animal-gods of the Hindu pantheon and as such are depicted wholly i n abstract rather than physical terms. They appear as a v i s i o n to the opium-drugged Findlayson and mark the central episode of the l a t t e r h a l f of the story's meticulously constructed n a r r a t i v e . C o l l e c t i v e l y , the animal-gods represent the s p i r i t of India i n i t s powerful but p a r t l y unconscious 50 denial of the ethic of progress epitomised by the B r i t i s h . The B u l l , the Parrot, the Buck, the Ape, the Tigress, and the Elephant a l l meet with Gunga the river-god, and Krishna the god of human love, and enact what 32 Peroo c a l l s a "punchayet of the gods". Kip l i n g ' s use of these animal-gods c l e a r l y shows h i s f a m i l i a r i t y with the Hindu conception of c e r t a i n important animals. Indeed, i t i s because of the phi l o s o p h i c a l c e n t r a l i t y of the animal-god t r a d i t i o n that K i p l i n g found i t p a r t i c u l a r l y useful to h i s a r t i s t i c purpose. This t r a d i t i o n represents a cl e a r example of the deeply ingrained supernaturalism of the Indian concept of l i f e , and as such t y p i f i e s the ethereal force that the B r i t i s h engineers must overcome, both l i t e r a l l y by spanning the Ganges with a bridge, and metaphorically by providing a l i n k between the Eastern and the Western ways of looking at the world. The c e n t r a l u n i f y i n g f a c t and metaphor throughout the whole story i s the bridge. As a ph y s i c a l construct, the bridge t y p i f i e s B r i t i s h r a t i o n a l i t y and enlightenment. The story f a l l s very noticeably into two parts. In the f i r s t we are presented with a v i v i d and d e t a i l e d account of the physi c a l bridge. More e s p e c i a l l y , we are introduced to the two engineers, Findlayson and Hitchcock, who masterminded the construction and who epitomise the q u a l i t i e s of commit-ment and a b i l i t y that make bridge-building possible. The bridge represents a physical evocation of the human consciousness capable of i t s construction. The l a t t e r h a l f of the story i s altogether d i f f e r e n t and i s 'bridged' to the f i r s t by the ha l l u c i n a t o r y impact on Findlayson's consciousness. Whereas the f i r s t h a l f was crowded with d e t a i l s of a very ordinary r e a l i t y , the second i s a v i s i o n i n v o l v i n g India 's animal-gods. These two forces are 51 pitched into b a t t l e when the Ganges floods and thus threaten the man-made bridge. In the l i t e r a l and f i g u r a t i v e contests, the bridge wins since i t withstands the force of the roaring water and since Findlayson f i n a l l y overcomes the power of ~ opium. By h i s single-minded act of w i l l e d consciousness, Findlayson shrugs o f f the drug and as one c r i t i c puts i t 33 r e f l e c t s "a t o t a l dedication to the r e a l i t y of experience". Ki p l i n g ' s animal-gods, the symbols of t r a d i t i o n a l India, represent the a n t i t h e s i s to Findlayson's p o s i t i v i s m . Yet during the actual v i s i o n , we appreciate that K i p l i n g ' s presentation of these beast-gods i s more equivocal than we might suppose. They are, i t should be repeated, nothing at a l l l i k e the animals of the Jungle Books, but rather seek to embody an abstract. However, the p e r s o n i f i e d manner i s s t i l l present. For example, Hanuman the grey Ape i s impish and prone to m i r t h f u l r i d d l e s . He i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y the god of work, amongst other things, and finds therefore i n the work of the B r i t i s h an unconscious act of devotion to himself. S i m i l a r l y , Ganesha i s the god of money and finds i n the commercial explosion caused by the B r i t i s h a s i m i l a r act of unconscious devotion. Other animals such as the Tigress and the B u l l concede that new enterprises such as the Railway have ensured a greater number of pilgrims v i s i t i n g t h e i r temples. On the surface then, the animal-gods suff e r from the i l l u s i o n that the B r i t i s h e f f o r t to assert t h e i r way of looking at r e a l i t y has i n f a c t only established the India status-quo. They f i n d i n t h e i r i n e v i t a b l e opponent only r e f l e c t i o n s of t h e i r own expanding importance. Only the river-god and Krishna f u l l y understand the threat that the B r i t i s h imply. I t i s Krishna who warns the animal-gods that l i t t l e by l i t t l e they w i l l be 52 discarded u n t i l they are merely "rag-gods, pot-godlings of the t r e e " / 1 * There i s a double-edge however to Krishna's words, since he implies that the i n e v i t a b l e decline of the animal-gods and the subsequent ascent of Findlayson and h i s kind i s but "Only for a l i t t l e " . The bridge may stand for today and the progress represented by the B r i t i s h may l a s t a few hundred years, but i n the longer scheme of things i t i s the world of non-human nature and her attendant animal-worship which w i l l p r e v a i l . This i s the consolation that Krishna o f f e r s the animal-gods, for once the bridges have f a l l e n and the Findlaysons forgotten, they w i l l once again become "gods of the jungle—names that the hunters of rats and noosers of dogs whisper i n the thicket and anong the caves". They w i l l again assume the potency that they once held and once again humans w i l l worship them. F i n a l l y , K i p l i n g implies, the Eastern mode of consciousness w i l l p r e v a i l over the Western—in India at l e a s t . This conclusion suggests an i n e v i t a b l e gap between the East and the West that w i l l not be permanently bridged by the consciousness of technological development. I t should be said of course that t h i s i s not n e c e s s a r i l y what K i p l i n g would have l i k e d to see. Doubtless, K i p l i n g would ' prefer i t i f Findlayson's sort would p r e v a i l since within the story i t i s t h i s character who i s depicted i n the most favourable l i g h t . Nevertheless, K i p l i n g o f f e r s us through t h i s excellent t a l e a view of the deeply ingrained habit of mind which sets up animals as gods and suggests through t h i s phenomenon that Western domination of the East i s f i n a l l y impossible. It should be remarked that the Indian animal-gods provide K i p l i n g with perhaps the most powerful f i g u r a t i v e representation 53 of Indian values a v a i l a b l e to him. In th i s we may note the usefulness of Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e to h i s thematic and a r t i s t i c purposes. "The Mark of the Beast" i s s i m i l a r to the "Bridge B u i l d e r s " i n that i t s use of an animal i s r e s t r i c t e d to an abstract animal-god, or rather to a Stone e f f i g y of Hanuman, the monkey-god. As an animal story "The Mark of the Beast" stands alongside "The Dog Hervey" i n i t s attempt to account f o r what Professor Tompkins has c a l l e d "the unexplored psychic p o t e n t i a l i t i e s 35 of man". In a drunken outrage, Fleete, one of the main characters, stubs out h i s cigar on a stone e f f i g y of Hanuman. By way of punishment, a leper appears and leans h i s head on Fleete's chest, imprinting there the mark of the beast i n the form of an ugly black sore. This action of revenge reaches an extreme stage when Fleete temporarily degenerates i n t o a lycanthropic state. Two of h i s friends bring the leper to the w o l f - l i k e Fleete and a f t e r b r u t a l l y beating and t o r t u r i n g him, force him to release the s p e l l i n f l i c t e d on the god-defiler. To bring the story to i t s f i n a l mysterious conclusion, Fleete awakens and remembers nothing at a l l about the incident. A l l i s l e f t unsettled, bathed i n the dimness of the supernatural p o t e n t i a l -i t i e s of the East. Very c l e a r l y , the theme and tone of th i s story i s d i f f e r e n t from the one previously discussed, although both r e l y on s i m i l a r conceptions of the Indian sense of Religious s i g n i f i c a n c e . "The Mark of the Beast" does not pretend to be anything more than a ta l e of horror and the supernatural very much i n the t r a d i t i o n of Edgar A l l a n Poe. Doubtless, a V i c t o r i a n England that had only a vague idea of Eastern r e l i g i o u s practices would have been more susceptible to t h i s story than we are today. To us i t i s a b r u t a l 54 display of Kipling's a b i l i t y to provoke a sense of psychic unease. But i t also reveals the way i n which he could cash-in on the English ignorance of Eastern r e l i g i o u s symbology. The animal-god i t s e l f i s merely a symbolic representation, but i t should be said that i t i s f e l t as r e a l enough within the b e s t i a l degradation of Fleete. The kind of l a t e n t l y potent r e l a t i o n s h i p between man and beast that i s presented i n "The Mark of the Beast" receives an i n t e r e s t i n g treatment i n another story "Bertran and Bimi". I t i s p l a i n l y a story of horror, b r u t a l i t y , and b e s t i a l i t y — s e l f - c o n s c i o u s l y so, we f e e l . Breitmann, a c o l l e c t o r of wild animals r e l a t e s how a f r i e n d of h i s reared an Ape from b i r t h and how t h i s animal seems to have the uncanny habit of being h a l f -human. Bimi i s described several times as "more than an Ape", and the claim i s made that he has "half a human soul i n h i s b e l l y " . The strength of t h i s man/beast i d e n t i f i c a t i o n reaches i t s climax when i n a f i t of jealous rage, the Ape murders i t s master's recent bride. K i p l i n g does not blanch at an e f f e c t i v e suggestion of the i n t e n s i t y and vilen e s s of the bride's m u t i l a t i o n — s h e i s l i t e r a l l y torn to pieces by the animal brute. This violence i s matched when Bertran takes h i s revenge with s i m i l a r b e s t i a l horror, and through t h i s the half-animal part of man i s exposed i n a l l i t s l a t e n t savagery. There i s no doubt that K i p l i n g revels i n the disgusting b r u t a l i t y of h i s own invention, but i t should be recognised that there i s a c e r t a i n sense of humour pervading the whole. It i s as i f K i p l i n g i s playing with the responses of h i s reader i n a very conscious way, e x p l o i t i n g the English view of the nature of the jungle i n the East. One i s reminded very much of 55 Well's The Island of Dr. Moreau as well as a host of other ape s a t i r e s of the l a t e 19th Century that consciously sought e i t h e r to challenge or r i d i c u l e Darwin's theory of the descent of man. This aspect of K i p l i n g ' s imagination c l e a r l y belongs to an e s s e n t i a l l y youthful phase i n h i s career when he was interested i n using animals and animal-gods to evoke for h i s English Readers the powerful mysteriousness of the East. However, i n a l a t e r and i n c i d e n t a l l y much more accomplished story, K i p l i n g once again explored the psychic p o t e n t i a l s of man as they are f i l t e r e d through the appropriately l i m i t e d perceptions of an animal. Professor Tompkins has described "The Dog Hervey" as K i p l i n g ' s most 36 d i f f i c u l t t a l e , and i t i s c e r t a i n l y true that the theme i t introduces and the way i t introduces i t , poses some problems of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The story i s concerned with a s e r i e s of psychic transferences between a number of humans and a dog. The p l o t i s c i r c u i t o u s to say the l e a s t and on occasion i t seems as i f K i p l i n g has consciously sought to create a r i d d l e of meaning and s i g n i f i c a n c e . Moira S i c h l i f f e buys a dog, the runt of the l i t t e r , as a f u t i l e and f i g u r a t i v e attempt to buy back her l o s t - l o v e , Mr. Shend. This f i r s t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between man and dog i s created through t h e i r mutual i l l n e s s . Shend,we learn,was a drunkard who had come to Miss S i c h l i f f e ' s father to get "patched up". S i m i l a r l y , the dog Harvey i s s i c k l y and there-fore stands for Miss S i c h l i f f e as a f i g u r a t i v e representation of her lover. But instead of curing the dog of i t s sickness she projects onto i t a l l her pent-up emotional f e e l i n g . F i n a l l y , she gives him to the narrator, who i s g e n i a l l y known to a l l as the f r i e n d to dogs, and who seems to have the a b i l i t y to help them. 56 However, Harvey exerts a very unnerving e f f e c t on the narrator. The animal i s obviously bewildered by the psychic p r o j e c t i o n i n f l i c t e d on him by Miss S i c h l i f f e . The narrator describes the dog's s u f f e r i n g : He never s h i f t e d h i s p o s i t i o n , but stared at me, an intense l o p -sided stare, eye a f t e r eye ... And so i t continued as long as he was with me. Where I sat, he sat and stared; where I walked, he walked beside, head s t i f f l y slewed over one shoulder i n s i n g l e -b a r e l l e d contemplation of me. He never gave tongue, never closed i n for a caress, seldom l e t me s t i r a step alone. 37 Very disturbed by t h i s kind of behaviour i n a dog, the narrator makes a determined e f f o r t to compare Harvey with h i s own more normal dog: Now, i n Malachi's eye I can see at any hour a l l there i s of the normal decent dog, flecked here and there with that strained h a l f - s o u l which man's love and asso c i a t i o n have added to h i s nature. But with Harvey the eye was perplexed, as a tortured man's. Only by looking f ar into i t s deeps could one make out the s p i r i t of the proper animal, beclouded and cowering beneath some unfair burden. (p.123) Up to this point i n the story i t i s not d i f f i c u l t to see how K i p l i n g i s using the man/dog i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The dog has become the psychic representative of Shend and i n i t s expression of anxiety projects onto the narrator strong f e e l i n g s of p i t y and concern. I t should be stressed that by and large the reader f e e l s himself to be i n the world of r e a l people and r e a l dogs. Af t e r a l l , i t i s not unusual f o r a dog to assume some of the psychological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i t s master, and p a r t i c u l a r l y so when the dog i s at a l l s i c k l y . Dogs have highly developed senses and they can very e a s i l y detect human f e e l i n g s , and therefore for Harvey to r e f l e c t some of Miss S i c h l i f f e ' s despair does not s t r i k e the reader as an unnatural v i o l a t i o n of ordinary r e a l i t y . This i s reinforced by the way that K i p l i n g integrates 57 other dogs into the narrative and thereby suggests a r e a l world of dog behaviour. This i n turn i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the e n t i r e l y usual atmospheres that encompass a l l of the characters, though e s p e c i a l l y the narrator. The most i n t e r e s t i n g aspect of "The Dog Hervey" i s the way i n which K i p l i n g blends t h i s world of ordinary r e a l i t y into the dream-like super-naturalism of the narrator's encounter with Shend and the subsequent r e u n i f i c a t i o n of the lovers. Through for t u i t o u s circumstances the narrator meets Shend, though i n i t i a l l y he doesn't know that he i s Miss S i c h l i f f e ' s ex-lover. In the presence of the narrator, Shend experiences a r e c u r r i n g d e l i r i u m i n which a dog, obviously Harvey, peers at him i n exactly the same way the dog had previously looked at the narrator. I t i s as i f the unnerving stare of the dog had prompted the narrator to seek out Shend and then for the dog's preternatural stare to become transposed into Shend's hal l u c i n a t o r y r e a l i t y . Once a l l t h i s has been made clear the lovers are reunited and the dog Harvey i s released from h i s unbearable burden. K i p l i n g i s d e l i b e r a t e l y s t r e t c h i n g the reader's c r e d i b i l i t y somewhat i n that he asks us to accept the workings of forces that are purely psychic, whether or not we can accept t h i s , there i s no doubt that K i p l i n g has suggested h i s theme i n an extremely crafted and i n t r i c a t e way and thus has at l e a s t earned a f u l l hearing. It would seem that K i p l i n g was r e a l l y attempting to amuse the patient reader with a story which sought to incorporate the natural and the supernatural within the powerful psychic force of a highly s e n s i t i v e dog. Within the three immediately previous s t o r i e s , K i p l i n g i s f o r c e f u l l y suggesting the psychic r e l a t i o n s h i p s that may e x i s t between man and animal. It should be said that he invests t h i s theme with perverse and sometimes 58 c r u e l humour, but nonetheless i t seems cl e a r that the basic idea i s a serious one. This sense of psychic closeness with the animal world-provides us with an i n t e r e s t i n g i n s i g h t into K i p l i n g ' s thinking. I t would seem that h i s frequent r e l i a n c e on animal p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n , both within fables as well as i n h i s n o n - f a b l i s t i c animal s t o r i e s , serves a purpose more profound than we might be led to suppose. Animals that represent human beings do so not only because t h i s transference e f f e c t s a simple and e f f e c t i v e method of e t h i c a l i l l u s t r a t i o n , but also because vestiges of the b e s t i a l within man sometimes exert s u r p r i s i n g pressures. K i p l i n g seems to point towards t h i s connection, and thus h i s r e l i a n c e on animal characters who exemplify human nature and who demonstrate the basic need for s o c i a l harmony, should be seen to suggest a view of the man/animal r e l a t i o n s h i p i n which d i s t i n c t i o n s are b l u r r e d . K i p l i n g ' s constant interweaving of human and animal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f i n a l l y produces i n the reader the idea that the transference serves more than a f i g u r a t i v e function, and that f or K i p l i n g the moral d i s t i n c t i o n s between man and animal were at best marginal. On two occasions K i p l i n g used animal s t o r i e s to discuss the abstract q u a l i t i e s of a r t and a r t i s t r y , p a r t i c u l a r l y as they r e l a t e to moral behaviour. "The B u l l that Thought", and "Teem - A Treasure Hunter" were written very l a t e i n Kipling's l i f e and i n fa c t the l a t t e r of these s t o r i e s was the l a s t thing he ever wrote. C r i t i c s have focused on these s t o r i e s , to quite a large extent concentrating on the autobiographical elements that seem to be 38 present. They make a case for assuming that the d i s q u i s i t i o n s on a r t i n both these works are Ki p l i n g ' s r e f l e c t i o n s on h i s own a r t i s t i c l i f e . I t i s true that there do seem to be some autobiographical overtones, although 59 i t should be remembered that K i p l i n g ' s daughter records that she spoke to her father on exactly t h i s point and he denied f l a t l y any conscious auto-39 biography. However, K i p l i n g was notoriously r e t i c e n t about divulging anything of h i s personal l i f e and we need not assume that what he says i s true. Indeed, i n t e r n a l evidence suggests autobiography but i t should be stressed that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the story's l i t e r a l action and auto-biographical echoes i s of a d e l i c a t e kind and i n f o r c i n g the l a t t e r c r i t i c s have tended to misrepresent the subtle nature of Kip l i n g ' s a r t i s t r y . "The B u l l that Thought" must be considered one of Ki p l i n g ' s very best s t o r i e s . Within i t s l i t e r a l and metaphorical parameters i t produces a 40 compelling narrative, and t h i s "concealed f a b l e " i s undeniably an example of the short story at i t s most e f f e c t i v e . In p a r t i c u l a r , the q u a l i t a t i v e representation of the B u l l i t s e l f i s of s t r i k i n g importance. The B u l l ' s name i s Apis, and we recognise i n t h i s the name of the Egyptian bull-god of c r e a t i v i t y , and t h i s physical beast i s described very much i n supra-animal terms, at times approaching the status of a Minotaur f i g u r e . We have seen before i n several s t o r i e s how K i p l i n g has implied the human - i n an animal, or vic e versa, but nowhere i s th i s so strongly f e l t as i n Apis. For as well as being a very f o r c e f u l animal, Apis i s also depicted as capable of human thought and human cunning. His q u a l i t i e s are so extraordinary that he i s seen as an animal p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of the supreme a r t i s t , and i n this,together 41 with some oblique references i n the poem accompanying the story, we detect hints of Kipling's own a r t i s t i c l i f e . But we must be e s p e c i a l l y c a r e f u l not to assume too clumsy a r e l a t i o n s h i p between Apis the a r t i s t and K i p l i n g the a r t i s t . 60 The story i s narrated by a Monsieur Voiron who once owned Apis and who now evokes the animal i n a l i v e and fervent terms. From the very beginning Apis i s described as a potent, even demonic f i g u r e ; h i s cunning violence i s as cr u e l and swift as i t i s uncompromising. In every sense t h i s i n t e l l i g e n t animal i s more powerful than man, and t h i s he proves when he outwits three of the b u l l - r i n g matadors and murders them. I t i s h i s combination of the physical prowess of an animal with the i n t e l l i g e n c e of a man that makes Apis the supreme a r t i s t he i s and which f i n a l l y earns him h i s release from the b u l l - r i n g . Throughout, images of ar t and a r t i s t r y are used to describe Apis. When s t i l l only young he would play with the would-be matadors, feigning moves that gave great delight to any spectator. But Apis would never repeat a t r i c k since r e p e t i t i o n i s something "no true a r t i s t w i l l t o l e r a t e " . When a l i t t l e older, Voiron comments that i n Apis's movements there was "a breadth of technique that comes of reasoned a r t , and, above a l l , the passion 42 that a r r i v e s a f t e r experience". And i n the b u l l - r i n g the narrator says that "I began to comprehend that i t was an a r t i s t we had to deal with". Further images and references accrue to e s t a b l i s h very f i r m l y the idea that K i p l i n g wishes us to see i n h i s animal a stunning typifi'cation of the demon-i c a l l y i n s p i r e d a r t i s t . F i n a l l y , Apis reaches the climax of h i s b u l l - r i n g experiences i n confronting an aged but ' a r t i s t i c ' matador: "He raged enormously; he feigned defeat; he despaired i n statuesque abandon, and thence flashed into fresh paroxysms of wrath—but always with the detachment of the true a r t i s t who knows he i s but the vessel of an emotion whence others, not he, must drink" (p.227). With t h i s detachment comes the mastery of achieved a r t . 61 Violence i s intimately connected with Apis's a r t , and i s i t s e l f treated within an a r t i s t i c context. After he has k i l l e d three b u l l s , Apis's manner of destruction i s evoked with h o r r i b l e c l a r i t y : "But Apis had k i l l e d i n his own s t y l e — a t dusk, from the ambush of a windbreak—by an oblique charge from behind which knocked the other over. He had then disembowlled him ... Apis went to the bank ... and c a r e f u l l y cleaned h i s horns i n the earth" (p.215). These murders are seen as acts of r i t u a l , concluded by what Voiron c a l l s the " l e v i t i c a l " cleansing of the horns. In an obvious inver-sion of animal s a c r i f i c e by humans, Apis o f f e r s up s a c r i f i c e s to the god of a r t . This r i t e of sacred urgency i s repeated on three humans: "Apis halted, hooked him under the heart, and threw him to the b a r r i e r . We heard h i s head crack, but he was dead before he h i t the wood" (pp.222-223). This sickening act of violence serves i t s function i n further d e f i n i n g the b r u t a l a r t i s t r y that Apis i s capable of. Moreover, t h i s violence should be seen as a necessary preamble to the supreme moment of a r t that occurs at the end of the story. The close i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between a r t and violence i s made to suggest the i n s e p a r a b i l i t y of these forces within a creature l i k e Apis. In the chapter of h i s book c a l l e d "The Aesthetics of Violence", Louis G i l b e r t has suggested that K i p l i n g i s here describing h i s own p r e d i l e c t i o n for violence (and revenge) within h i s s t o r i e s , suggesting that for him the two q u a l i t i e s were intimately l i n k e d . I f K i p l i n g i s doing t h i s then he i s answering and confirming one of the chief c r i t i c i s m s that has 43 been l e v e l l e d at him from h i s e a r l i e s t days. Dr. G i l b e r t goes rather too far with h i s argument. Bonamy Dobree seems to be more correct when he argues that the linked aspects of violence and a r t constitute q u a l i t i e s of 62 the French war-time personality. There are several references throughout the story .. to the War, and of course the story i s set i n France and r e l a t e d by a very p a t r i o t i c Frenchman intent on eulogizing Camargue c a t t l e . Dobree suggests that the numerous k i l l i n g s perpetrated by Apis are the great French b a t t l e s and that f i n a l l y the story i s a " f a b l e . . . i n praise of France, her valour, her a r t . The two c r i t i c a l arguments given above are p a r t i a l l y p l a u s i b l e , but they both seem to make the same error of t r y i n g too single-mindedly to f i n d the r e a l i t y that l i e s behind the symbol of Apis the b u l l . This i s very often the tendency.when confronted with a t r a d i t i o n a l fable; the reader wants to discern the r e a l meaning which l i e s behind the l i t e r a l surface. However, the meaning of K i p l i n g ' s fables often l i e within rather than behind the l i t e r a l a c t i o n . Thus, heavy-handed exegetical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s tend to d i s t o r t the story; the p e c u l i a r richness of Kipling's n a r r a t i v e l i n e seems to demand that concealed fables, autobiographical or other, exert a r e s i d u a l and quickly evaporating e f f e c t . In a story l i k e "The B u l l that Thought" the reader i s f i n a l l y thrown back into the surface, teased out of i n t e r -p r e t a t i v e thought. And once thrown back i n t h i s way, we are again struck by the p e c u l i a r l y potent e f f e c t that the animal Apis exerts as a physical presence. The story has the e f f e c t i t has because the b u l l i s presented with an anthropomorphic dynamism that depends on a very d i r e c t understanding of i t s r e a l potency as an animal. It i s convenient to the argument of t h i s thesis that the l a s t story K i p l i n g ever wrote was an animal story. "Teem - A Treasure Hunter" i s a t a l e which l i k e "The B u l l that Thought" i s concerned with the value of a r t 63 and a r t i s t r y . This time the a r t i s contained within the r e f i n e d o l f a c t o r y q u a l i t i e s of a dog c a l l e d Teem. His a r t i s to s n i f f out valuable t r u f f l e s and i t i s i n s i s t e d that for him the values of a r t and work are inseparable. In t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n we f i n d a moral stance. Throughout, Teem exemplifies the adage taught him by h i s dog-mentor: "At a l l hazards follow your a r t . That can never lead to a f a l s e scent". " This i n s i s t e n c e on p r a c t i s i n g an art w e l l learned, i s l a t e r shown to exert a moral function within the family circumstances of the humans Teem l i v e s with. I t i s h i s a b i l i t y to s n i f f out the expensive t r u f f l e s that enables h i s human owners to stave o f f starvation and avoid the c r u e l treatment by t h e i r landlord. This part of the story i s susceptible to the charge of being sentimental since i t so obviously i s a v a r i a t i o n of the White Knight f a i r y - s t o r y i n which outraged innocence i s protected from the barbarisms of a h o s t i l e world. Bonamy Dobree has charged that t h i s story has " a l l the sentimentality of K i p l i n g ' s dog s t o r i e s " , and on the basis of t h i s judgment avoids the l i t e r a l surface of the fable and instead prefers to "follow the story as autobiography". Drawing upon e a r l i e r comments made by A. C. Bodelson, Dobree concentrates on the apparent correspondences between the l i v e s of Teem and K i p l i n g . Obviously, we are i n a s i m i l a r c r i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n to that of "The B u l l that Thought", where the whole focus of i n t e r e s t i s away from the l i t e r a l story. Dobree summarizes his p o s i t i o n thus: The whole fable i s c l e a r enough. K i p l i n g i n h i s mature period, coming from abroad, brought h i s treasures of s t o r y - t e l l i n g to an unappreciative public who had not the f a i n t e s t idea what he was getting at ... but at l a s t the Born One, that i s the small group of perceptive and i n t e l l i g e n t people, were made aware of and appreciated h i s t r u f f l e s ... 47 64 Professor Dobree goes on to admit that "the d e t a i l s are a l i t t l e obscure" but s t i l l maintains that the point of the fable i s "abundantly p l a i n " . To a reader who comes fresh to t h i s story nothing could be l e s s p l a i n , and to suggest that the d e t a i l s are obscure i s to understate. I t i s true that the personal h i s t o r y of Teem does follow that of K i p l i n g , but so i t does for any number of a r t i s t s we could think of. If there i s any a n a l o g i c a l correspondence, i t i s there i n such a general way that to suggest anything l i k e p a r a l l e l i s m i s to grossly exaggerate the r e a l s i t u a t i o n . More impor-ta n t l y , to use t h i s kind of argument as a pretext for ignoring the l i t e r a l story i s to abuse the subtlety of K i p l i n g ' s a r t i s t r y . For once we look c l o s e l y at the way that K i p l i n g has dealt with the l i t e r a l dog, i t becomes p l a i n that he has been extremely c a r e f u l i n the way he presented him. It a l s o becomes c l e a r that Dobree's charge of sentimentality comes about as a r e s u l t of not looking c l o s e l y enough at K i p l i n g ' s f a b l i s t i c manner. In t h i s story at l e a s t , K i p l i n g i s very c a r e f u l not to trespass too f a r against a reader's ever-ready ear for doggy sentimentality. Of course, Teem i s anthwpomorphised i n that for him to represent the abstract q u a l i t i e s of working, moral a r t i s t r y he must be given the apparent a b i l i t y to think l i k e a human being. However, K i p l i n g has managed to keep everything that Teem does within the bounds of actual dog behaviour. This i s true also of Apis, and the actions of both are p l a u s i b l e within the context of how animals l i v e and behave. This manifests i t s e l f i n Teem's sense of smell. Everything he does i s as a r e s u l t of t h i s n atural a r t . When the e v i l Landlord comes around^for example, Teem knows to d i s t r u s t him because he senses the smell of fear 65 within the humans he loves. S i m i l a r l y , he knows that there i s something wrong with the young g i r l because he smells the aroma of s i c k l i n e s s and imminent death. The boundaries of n a t u r a l i s t i c decency are not v i o l a t e d here s i n c e ^ s we have noted before both i n "The Dog Hervey" and "Garm -A Hostage", dogs are . capable of sensing human emotions. L a s t l y , when he finds the t r u f f l e s on h i s family's land he i s following the art that he has been taught and thus the moral q u a l i t i e s of t h i s action are predicated on a highly natural phenomenon. It need scarcely be said that such animals do e x i s t and that once trained the dog never loses the habit of performing h i s a r t i s t i c duty. Within the contexts of th i s clever and subtle handling of the dog, Teem, the whole story comes a l i v e i n a way that i t perhaps didn't before. There i s no doubt that the story i s not one of Ki p l i n g ' s Best, but at the same time i t should be appreciated that a close look at the minutiae of Kipl i n g ' s a r t often reveals l e v e l s of subtle construction previously un-suspected. In "Teem - A Treasure Hunter" K i p l i n g begins with common notions and instances of animal behaviour, such as natural a f f e c t i o n , s e n s i t i v i t y to human emotions, or the willingness to perform trained work, and transforms these into a situation;ih which those animal actions and habits are made to exemplify morally a c t i v e v i r t u e s . To ignore the l i t e r a l n e s s of t h i s representation and to proceed to autobiographical suggestions i s to miss the fineness of K i p l i n g ' s a r t . And K i p l i n g i s often at h i s f i n e s t when he i s using animals to enact h i s moral b e l i e f s . 66 GEORGE ORWELL In a review of Burmese Days Malcolm Muggeridge remarked that both K i p l i n g and Orwell "found i t easier to present animals rather than human beings i n a sympathetic l i g h t " . ^ Although t h i s i s p a r t l y true i t does an i n j u s t i c e to both w r i t e r s , e s p e c i a l l y K i p l i n g . I t would be f a i r e r to say that i n the presentation of s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l points of view, the d i r e c t s i m p l i c i t y of animal 'types' was more immediately e f f e c t i v e than the more complex demands of human ch a r a c t e r i s a t i o n . Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e has always been a useful medium for the presentation of s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l ideas, and thus i n an age where the exigencies of p o l i t i c a l necessity force them-selves upon people with unprecedented urgency, i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g to see such ov e r t l y p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i s t s as K i p l i n g and Orwell resort to the older conventions of the Bestiary t r a d i t i o n . Animal Farm probably stands as the best known example of The Modern Bestiary, and i n the s t r i c t n e s s of i t s form i t i s perhaps the most conven-t i o n a l . Despite the adverse c r i t i c i s m s that have been made of i t , t h i s fable s t i l l maintains a great popular appeal and continues to excite' p o l i t i c a l controversy. Within i t s c a r e f u l l y c o n t r o l l e d sequence of events, we may s t i l l f i n d a l i v e l y and convincing demonstration of the usefulness of the Beast-Fable as a form for presenting p o l i t i c a l argument. The d i r e c t -ness of Orwell's p o l i t i c a l point of view suggests more than anything else the change i n the urgency of the p o l i t i c a l climate that occurred since the heyday of Kipling's England. As Orwell comments i n h i s excellent study of K i p l i n g , K i p l i n g did not foresee "the tank, the bombing plane, the radio and the secret p o l i c e " . Thus, i f we perceive a greater stridency i n the 67 way that Orwell handles h i s p o l i t i c a l animals, we may a t t r i b u t e t h i s to the more troubled time i n which he l i v e d . However, i t should not be assumed that Animal Farm i s the only example of Bestiary l i t e r a t u r e that we f i n d i n Orwell. Rather, t h i s l a t e f u l l y - f l e d g e d animal fable represents a culmination of a number of animal references that precede i t . Animal Farm stands as the culmination of the animal/proletarian i d e n t i f i c a t i o n at work throughout Orwell's e a r l i e r w r i t i n g . The extraordinary s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the backgrounds of K i p l i n g and Orwell may suggest some of the forces that contributed to each becoming p o l i t i c a l l y a c t i v e and may account f o r t h e i r r e l i a n c e on animal l i t e r a t u r e . Both men sprang from the ranks of those who served the B r i t i s h Empire i n the East, where of course such fa c t s as caste d i s t i n c t i o n and law and order pressed upon the r u l i n g Whites with a c l a r i t y denied to those who l i v e d i n the r e l a t i v e t r a n q u i l i t y of England. The 'White Man's Burden' and the attendant apartheid between the Natives and the Europeans were f o r both writers very r e a l concerns, and each reacted to them i n h i s own way. As we have seen, K i p l i n g redefined the Imperial mission as a moral duty and turned towards a R i g h t i s t p o l i t i c a l persuasion. Orwell, on the other hand, was to turn away from the B r i t i s h point of view and to i d e n t i f y with the oppressed Natives. However, for neither was t h i s process free from severe equivo-cat i o n . K i p l i n g did not believe b l i n d l y i n B r i t i s h Imperial r u l e and Orwell was not unaware that B r i t i s h Imperialism had i t s good points. Within the whole range of Orwell's w r i t i n g , we see h i s continual e f f o r t to expunge the cl a s s snobbery that he f e l t within him, and t h i s i s seen very often i n the way he sympathises with the oppressed and down-68 trodden. We should recognise i n t h i s of course the purely moral nature of Orwell's p o l i t i c a l concerns; he wanted to eradicate i n j u s t i c e and oppression because these were wrong. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h i s sympathy with the subjected classes i s often p a r a l l e l e d with a sympathy for misused or d i s -abused animals. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true of the early Eastern essays and novels, where the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the status of natives and animals was obviously c l e a r . We should remember too that Orwell knew India w e l l and would have had s i m i l a r recourse to the Indian conception of animals that we saw i n our discussion of K i p l i n g . Doubtless, for example, he would have known the Pancha-Tantra and the whole notion of exemplifying human action within the n a r r a t i v e s h i e l d of animal behaviour would have been f a m i l i a r to him. In a b i t t e r l y powerful account of h i s early schooldays i n England, he remarks that "most of the good memories of my childhood, and up to about 3 the age of twenty, are i n some ways connected with animals". In the same essay, Orwell goes on to si n g l e out the incidents of animal nature study as bright spots i n an otherwise d u l l world. Orwellian c r i t i c i s m has tended to concentrate on the p o l i t i c a l aspects of h i s w r i t i n g career, as w e l l as h i s l i f e , and has neglected the moralist and Natural H i s t o r i a n . Richard Cook remarks that such moral q u a l i t i e s as "a sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and ... a code of personal decency" t y p i f y both 4 K i p l i n g and Orwell. Behind the p o l i t i c a l i n s i s t e n c e s , Cook's argument runs, there lay imperatives of a moral kind. In such essays as "Reflections On a Common Toad" i t becomes cl e a r that one of these bases i s the r i g h t and a b i l i t y of everyone to enjoy Nature: "How many a time have I stood watching 69 the toads mating, or a p a i r of hares having a boxing match i n the young corn, and thought of a l l the important persons who would stop me enjoying t h i s i f they could ... i f a man can't enjoy the return of Spring, why should he be happy i n a labour-saving Utopia?""* Enjoying Nature then i s one human a c t i v i t y which i s a value to be preserved and enjoying animals i s a natural part of t h i s . Orwell was a great bird-watcher and lover of Nature generally, and we f i n d h i s insistence on the value of Natural History through-out h i s w r i t i n g . In h i s f i r s t novel we know that he attempted to write from a Zolaesque, N a t u r a l i s t standpoint, and t h i s f i c t i o n a l tendency i s f a r from s u r p r i s i n g i n a writer who confided to Henry M i l l e r that he has "a sort of b e l l y - t o - e a r t h a t t i t u d e " and who always f e e l s uneasy when he "gets away7 from the ordinary world where grass i s green, stones hard etc."*' As i f to reinfo r c e the point, he discontinues the l e t t e r i n order "to milk the goat". Elsewhere too, i n h i s comments on D. H. Lawrence for example, Orwell picks out for s p e c i a l praise Lawrence's de t a i l e d knowledge of n a t u r a l l i f e . ^ S i m i l a r l y , i n h i s notes to The Road to Wigan Pier he makes frequent asides about the state of the natural w i l d - l i f e , using these comments not only as something valuable i n t h e i r own r i g h t but also as i r o n i c contrasts to the g human predicament he i s d i s c l o s i n g . Other examples of t h i s a t t i t u d e may be found throughout Orwell's c o l l e c t e d works, and i n a l l of t h i s we discern a q u a l i t y of Orwell's s e n s i b i l i t y that together with h i s well-known L e f t i s t p o l i t i c a l persuasions gives r i s e to the strong sympathetic r e l a t i o n -ship between the poor and animals. In h i s rather obscure book, Alan Sandison describes t h i s n a t u r a l i s t i c 9 habit of mind i n Orwell with the phrase "Operating Inside Nature". He 70 r i g h t l y points out that t h i s implies for Orwell not j u s t animals but also Wigan, London, and P a r i s , indeed "everything which i n i t s p h y s i c a l i t y i s capable of making an impact on the senses"."^ The p l i g h t s of the Burmese natives and the English working cl a s s were perhaps the two forces which acted most importantly on Orwell's senses, and very often h i s attempts to a r t i c u l a t e his own responses to them i s r e f l e c t e d through animal analogy. The essay "A Hanging" provides a useful example of the way i n which Orwell can use an animal to good e f f e c t . Of course, the ce n t r a l focus i s on the hanging i t s e l f , or rather on the ambivalent fee l i n g s aroused i n the narrator by the hanging. As a whole, t h i s essay, though perhaps i t would be more appropriate to c a l l i t a story, i s a masterpiece of c a r e f u l l y evoked d e t a i l i n which an Indian c o o l i e i s hanged. Within the context of t h i s human drama, there enters a dog who causes a r e f l e c t i v e hiatus within the awful ceremony: — a dog, come goodness knows whence, had appeared i n the yard. It came bounding among us with a loud v o l l e y of barks and leapt round us wagging i t s whole body, wild with glee at f i n d i n g so many human beings together. I t was a large woolly dog, h a l f Airedale, h a l f p a r i a h ; For a moment i t pranced round us, and then, before anyone could stop i t , i t had made a dash for the prisoner, jumping up t r i e d to l i c k h i s face. Everybody stood aghast, too taken aback even to grab the dog. 11 The e f f e c t of t h i s rude i n t e r r u p t i o n i s to disturb the i n d i v i d u a l members of the hanging party, e s p e c i a l l y Orwell, and to i n j e c t i n t o the story a v i v i d d e t a i l of natural l i f e . F i r s t i t should be said that the natural realism of the dog's presence i s s u f f i c i e n t to suggest the r e a l i t y of the occurrence. The dog i s r e a l , acting within a r e a l s i t u a t i o n . In f a c t , i t i s t h i s very f e e l of r e a l aliveness, and one might even say the p l a y f u l 71 freedom of the dog's f r i e n d l i n e s s , which causes the disturbance registered by the narrator. Emotionally, t h i s incident with the dog i s more complex than i t might seem. The ceremony of death, anxious yet numbing, i s punctuated by a potent but uncomprehending form of l i f e . Indeed, the dog's i n a b i l i t y to understand these human proceedings finds a counterpart i n the confusion and lack of proper understanding f e l t by the Indian c o o l i e . A subtle i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s here being made between the almost hypnotized c o o l i e and the carefree animal. When the dog i s f i n a l l y caught and moved o f f " s t i l l s t r a i n i n g and whimpering" we f e e l that t h i s action i s p a r a l l e l to that of the c o o l i e : both are p o s i t i v e l i f e - f o r c e s . The potent l i f e of the natural dog i s further p a r a l l e l e d to the entrapped prisoner when as a gesture of the instinctual l i f e l e f t i n him, the prisoner side-steps a puddle and thereby avoids getting h i s feet wet. I t i s exactly at t h i s point that a moment of revealed consciousness comes to Orwell, and t h i s r e a l i z a t i o n constitutes the c e n t r a l d r i f t of the whole story: " I t i s curious, but t i l l that moment I had never r e a l i z e d what i t means to destroy a healthy, conscious man ... I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of c u t t i n g a l i f e short when i t i s i n f u l l t i d e " (p.11). The active l i f e of the dog constitutes an important part i n Orwell's a r r i v a l at t h i s consciousness. Other d e t a i l s accrue i n "A Hanging" to suggest the c a r e f u l l y juxtaposed worlds of natural animal l i f e with the corruption of man's doings. In the very f i r s t paragraph Orwell describes the condemned c e l l s as "animal cages" and the rest of the n a r r a t i v e extends the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between animal and native, both of which seem to suggest for Orwell examples of hearty, robust 72 l i f e . We should note too that Orwell's sympathies are very obviously with the c o o l i e , notwithstanding the callousness that he displays with the other Whites a f t e r the hanging has been completed. And a f t e r the man has been hanged, i t i s the dog who f i r s t approaches: "I lat go of the dog, and i t galloped immediately to the back of the gallows; but when i t got there i t stopped short, barked and then retreated into a corner of the yard, where i t stood among the weeds, looking timorously out at us" (p.12). With the uncanny sense of death that dogs have, the animal r e g i s t e r ,s a profound sense of di s q u i e t , and i t i s the f u l l n e s s of t h i s f e e l i n g which contrasts sharply with the alienated sense of horror that the whites r e g i s t e r through t h e i r nervous laugh. As George Woodcock has said, "The animal kingdom i s i d e n t i f i e d with that oppressed other world of humanity towards which the narrator, i n that moment preceding the hanging, has f e l t a sudden 12 opening of sympathy". Orwell's response to the death i s nothing i f not equivocal. I t i s true that t h i s moment of sympathy i s there for the oppressed, and i t i s a sympathy that we w i l l meet with again i n a l l of Orwell's works. But at the same time, a more compromising tone i s also established:a complicity with the other Sahib Whites who know themselves to be protected from the fate of the Indian c o o l i e s . The astonishing clash of these two sympathies comprises an e s s e n t i a l dilemma that Orwell faced as a White r u l e r i n an oppressed country. "A Hanging" i s a l l the more remark-able f o r the honesty with which Orwell attempts to face the schizophrenia of h i s own sympathetic responses. And the strong i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between the oppressed native and the sub-human animal suggests i n i t s e l f the d i f f i c u l t y of Orwell's p o s i t i o n . For on the one hand, he f e l t more than a 73 strong l i k i n g for animals, yet, on the other, i m p l i c i t i n an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between native and animal i s a condescending aloofness. The same question of Orwell's sympathy f o r the oppressed natives and his ambiguous response to the moral and p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s that he confronted, appear i n "Shooting an Elephant". Indeed, the whole essay pivots on Orwell's ambivalent a t t i t u d e to the people of Burma as w e l l as to the natural phenomenon of the elephant. Within the n a r r a t i v e , the elephant comes to represent for Orwell a complex problem for h i s own p o l i t i c a l conscience. What a c t u a l l y happens i n the story i s r e a l l y quite simple, i n v o l v i n g as i t does the narrator's shooting of an elephant i n 'must' that has gone on a rampage and k i l l e d a c o o l i e . As a policeman i n the Burmese p o l i c e force, Orwell i s c a l l e d upon to deal with the s i t u a t i o n i n the best manner possible. Even though he finds that the animal's 'must' has passed he i s pressured by the native Burmese people to k i l l the elephant. At stake, he f e e l s , i s h i s r o l e as a Sahib whose duty i t i s to r u l e the oppressed people. > The themes of the story however are more complex than a simple narration of the p l o t might suggest. "Shooting an Elephant" was f i n a l l y w r i t ten i n 1936, almost ten years a f t e r Orwell l e f t Burma and at a time when h i s p o l i t i c a l views were more decidely towards Socialism. From t h i s perspective Orwell no doubt saw h i s p o s i t i o n i n Burma with great c l a r i t y and saw with greater p o l i t i c a l consciousness the moral e v i l of Imperialism. As a r e s u l t of t h i s we see how Orwell has managed the events of the story to b r i n g out as f u l l y as possible the conditions and d u p l i c i t i e s imposed on a decent man serving an indecent system. The Burmese policeman's confron-74 t a t i o n with an elephant he must k i l l becomes an important symbolic event rendered with the f u l l force of Orwell's narrative powers. As we noted i n our discussion of K i p l i n g , the Elephant i s represented i n the Hindu pantheon as the god of wisdom and i n t e l l e c t . Yet within Asian communities, the Elephant i s also an animal equivalent to our bull-dozer. As Orwell remarks, " I t i s a serious matter to shoot an working elephant — 13 i t i s comparable to destroying a huge and c o s t l y piece of machinery". Orwell knows with h i s r a t i o n a l consciousness that he ought not to k i l l the elephant but : i s compelled against h i s reasonable judgment by h i s l e s s than reasonable reaction to the pressure of the natives. I m p l i c i t i n t h i s are two re l a t e d ideas. F i r s t i s the notion that a t y r a n n i c a l r u l i n g nation or class loses i t s freedom i n proportion to the power i t exercises. The other idea i s that i n t h i s process. those who are ruled determine and govern the acts of t h e i r oppressors. I t i s clear to the reader that Orwell finds himself trapped within these forces. On the one hand, he recognizes the moral i n i q u i t y of B r i t i s h r u l e : "For at that time I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an e v i l thing and the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of i t the better:"(p.15). From t h i s p o s i t i o n Orwell goes on to say that he was i m p l i c i t l y led ( t h e o r e t i c a l l y ) to be on the side of the oppressed people. Yet we must put t h i s up against some contrary sentiments. "... I thought that the greatest joy i n the world would be to d r i v e a bayonet into a Buddhist p r i e s t ' s guts" (p.16). The dichotomy represented by these two clashing points of view reaches a climax through the powerful presence and even more powerful death of the elephant. The scene i s set i n one of the poorest parts of the town and the 75 elephant i s i n i t i a l l y pictured "tearing up bunches of grass, beating them against h i s knees to clean them and s t u f f i n g them into h i s mouth". His 'must' i s now over and he i s as peaceful as a "cow". The pressure of the crowd, evoked f o r c e f u l l y within the texture of the c l u t t e r i n g n a r r a t i v e , makes the death i n e v i t a b l e . The death i t s e l f , and i t s attendent emotions, should be quoted i n f u l l : In that instant, in too short a time, one would have thought, even f o r the b u l l e t to get there, a mysterious, t e r r i b l e change had come over the elephant. He neither s t i r r e d not* f e l l , but every l i n e of h i s body had a l t e r e d . He looked suddenly s t r i c k e n , shrunken, immensely o l d , as though the f r i g h t f u l impact of the b u l l e t had paralysed him without knocking him down. At l a s t , a f t e r what seemed a long t i m e — i t might have been f i v e seconds, I dare s a y — h e sagged f l a b b i l y to h i s knees. His mouth slobbered. An enormous s e n i l i t y seemed to have s e t t l e d upon him. One could have imagined him thousands of years o l d . I f i r e d again into the same spot. At the second shot he did not collapse but climbed with desperate slowness to h i s feet and stood weakly upright, with legs sagging and head drooping. I f i r e d a t h i r d time. That was the shot that did for him. You could see the agony of i t j o l t h i s whole body and knock the l a s t remnant of strength from hi s legs. But i n f a l l i n g he seemed for a moment to r i s e , for as h i s hind legs collapsed beneath him he seemed to tower upwards l i k e a high rock toppling, h i s trunk reaching skywards l i k e a tree. He trumpeted, f o r the f i r s t and only time. And then down he came, h i s b e l l y towards me, with a crash that seemed to shake the ground even where I l a y . I got up. The Burmans were already racing past me across the mud. I t was obvious that the elephant would never r i s e again, but he was not dead. He was breathing very rhythmically with long r a t t l i n g gasps, h i s great mound of a side p a i n f u l l y r i s i n g and f a l l i n g . His mouth was wide open—I could see f a r down into caverns of pale pink throat. I waited a long time f o r him to die, but h i s breathing did not weaken. F i n a l l y , I f i r e d my two remaining shots i n t o the spot where I thought h i s heart must be. The thick blood welled out of him l i k e red ve l v e t , but s t i l l he did not die . His body did not even j e r k when the shots h i t him, the tortured breathing continued without a pause. He was dying, very slowly and i n great agony, but i n some world remote from me where not even a b u l l e t could damage him further. I f e l t that I had got to put an end to that dreadful noise. I t seemed dreadful to see the great beast l y i n g there, powerless to move and yet powerless to die, and not even be able to f i n i s h him. I sent back for my small r i f l e and poured shot a f t e r shot into h i s heart 76 and down h i s throat. They seemed to make no impression. The tortured gasps continued as s t e a d i l y as the t i c k i n g of a clock. In the end I could not stand i t any longer and went away. I heard l a t e r that i t took him h a l f an hour to d i e . (pp.21-22) The emotions aroused here are not simple, and i t i s p a i n f u l l y evident that the scene i s rendered with a very p h y s i c a l sense of dramatic importance. The protracted death, the stubborn r e f u s a l of the elephant to die, produces an accumulated impact of intense s u f f e r i n g , a s u f f e r i n g oddly i n t e n s i f i e d by the sheer bulk of the dying beast. As one reads t h i s passage there i s l i t t l e doubt that Orwell i s on the elephant's side, emotionally and even i d e o l o g i c a l l y . Given the fac t that i t was he who pulled the t r i g g e r , Orwell's e s s e n t i a l l y humane response to the s u f f e r i n g of the elephant becomes charged with a d e l i c a t e kind of irony. He wishes intensely to put the animal out of i t s misery as quickly as possible, but he i s impeded through h i s own i n e v i t a b l e kind of impotence, the impotence f e l t by a man who attempts to control the l i f e of a force e s s e n t i a l l y outside h i s e f f e c -t i v e governing. The s i t u a t i o n of the dying elephant i s analogous to Orwell's uneasy duty towards the suppressed Burmese people, and i n neither s i t u a t i o n can he be said to be i n co n t r o l . The f u l l ambiguity of t h i s incident i s reached when Orwell f i n a l l y admits that he k i l l e d the elephant to "avoid looking a f o o l " . I t i s a frank confession of moral cowardice. In sympathizing with the Burmese beast that he i r o n i c a l l y f e e l s compelled to k i l l , Orwell c l a r i f i e s h i s own d ouble-bind p o s i t i o n . By analogy we may say that the elephant stands i n some respects f o r the oppressed Burmese people; both are the r e c i p i e n t of often cruel and senseless oppression. Orwell's sympathies are c l e a r l y with 77 the Burmese natives on t h i s point. But i r o n i c a l l y , i t i s the Burmese people themselves who force him to shoot the animal, and the imp l i c a t i o n of t h i s would seem to be that the oppressed are ignorant of the p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n that they confront. Rather, they seek to c a p i t a l i s e on the incident, taking the elephant's meat f o r food. P o l i t i c a l conscience i s the property only of those s u f f i c i e n t l y educated to a f f o r d the luxury. But the figure of the elephant i s i n r e a l i t y more complex than we have so far indicated. The working elephant i s e f f e c t i v e l y a t o o l of B r i t i s h e x p l o i t a t i o n , unconsciously so of course, and thus i s implicated i n the larger p o l i t i c a l connotations. In k i l l i n g the elephant, Orwell i s k i l l i n g a symbolic aspect of Imperialism, perhaps even the B r i t i s h Empire i t s e l f . This does not s t r i k e the reader immediately at the conscious l e v e l , yet furthe r r e f l e c t i o n makes the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between the dying elephant and the dying Empire seem appropriate, e s p e c i a l l y since the impotence of Imperial r u l e i s shown so r u t h l e s s l y within the submission of Orwell to the w i l l of the mass. Within t h i s context, the emotional rendering of the elephant's death takes on tinctures of conservatism that were never f a r from Orwell's Socialism. For i n k i l l i n g the elephant, Orwell i s also p a i n f u l l y k i l l i n g a part of himself; he may f r e e l y wish for t h i s part to be k i l l e d , yet the elimination of deeply ingrained prejudices r a r e l y occurs without some personal discomfort. And we should not be b l i n d to Orwell's repeated insistence that e v i l though the Empire was, i t was not on a 14 r e l a t i v e scale the worst kind of rule possible. He was not naive enough to assume that the B r i t i s h Empire i n Burma, of which he was an equivocal part, was either without i t s astringent v i r t u e s or without i t s moral advantages over many other forms of tyranny. 78 Within the i m p l i c i t ambiguity of the elephant then, the dilemmas i t brings to the surface, and the complex emotions i t gives r i s e to, Orwell presents us with an engaging and challenging depiction of an animal. Of p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e i s the alignment of Orwell's p o l i t i c a l ambivalences with the c o n f l i c t i n g emotions aroused by the animal. This i s a c o r r e l a t i o n that manifests i t s e l f elsewhere i n Orwell's work, most s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n Animal Farm. Burmese Days i s Orwell's only novel of the East, and i n a more extended though not n e c e s s a r i l y more successful manner than that of the two essays already discussed, t h i s work records the dreadful c o n f l i c t s that a white man with a conscience f e e l s about the Imperial s i t u a t i o n . I t i s not i n s i g n i f i c a n t that i t i s i n Orwell's writings of the East, that the world of animal nature forces i t s e l f into the n a r r a t i v e i n meaningful ways. It i s i n the East, as we have found occasion to remark several times i n our discussion of K i p l i n g , that the whole r e l a t i o n s h i p between man and beast i s l e s s clear-cut than i n the r a t i o c i n a t i v e west. Orwell once remarked that i n novels about the East, "the scenery i s the r e a l subject-matter"."'""' In describing Burmese Days as the only novel that he l i k e d , Orwell comments that i t i s "the descriptions of scenery" which pleased him most. He might have gone on to say that the most dramatically i n t e r e s t i n g parts of the novel's natural descriptions and evocations of the Burmese landscape almost i n v a r i a b l y involve animals and b i r d s . As one c r i t i c puts i t , i t i s almost as i f there i s "a conspiracy of the land whose agents, i n animal form, intervene at c r u c i a l moments to help determine the fates of the human .. 16 characters . 79 On the simplest l e v e l , animal imagery i s used constantly throughout the novel to describe f i g u r a t i v e l y many of the Asians who inhabit the Burmese town of Kyauktada. U Po Kyin, the machinating Burmese o f f i c i a l who seems to personify Orwell's notion that the imperial r u l e r s are i n fact ruled by the suppressed people, i s described several times by Dr. Veraswami as "a crocodile i n human shape. He has the cunning of the crocodile, i t s c r u e l t y , i t s b e s t i a l i t y " . We need look no further than Kipling's t a l e "The Undertakers" from the Second Jungle Book to f i n d a powerful l i t e r a r y forerunner f o r the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the crocodile with e v i l . In describing U Po Kyin i n t h i s way however, Orwell i s doing f a r more than merely employing a convenient metaphor .. He i s also r e l y i n g on the strong Eastern t r a d i t i o n of personifying animals, e s p e c i a l l y when moral conduct i s i n question. This t r a d i t i o n of course finds a powerfully r e l i g i o u s connotation i n the Buddhist b e l i e f that a man's moral conduct determines h i s reincarnated form i n the next l i f e . I f a man leads an e v i l l i f e then he w i l l be reincarnated as vermin, and i t i s noted several times i n the course of the novel that doubtless t h i s i s how U Po Kyin would reappear, as a rat or a frog.''"'' U Po Kyin himself b e l i v e s that he can make up for the e v i l he has perpetrated by buying temples and thereby s a t i s f y the gods. He dies before t h i s i s done, and within the r e l i g i o u s framework of the novel, the assumption i s that h i s animal equivalent i s one of the lowest forms of animal l i f e . Dogs and dog imagery are also very prevalent. This imagery i s most usually used by the White Sahibs to describe the Asians, and indeed the pathetic fawning of such Burmese as Mr. Francis, Mr. Samuel, the club 80 servants, and even Dr. Veraswami, s t r i k e s one as having something of the b l i n d a t t i t u d e of a dog to i t s master. To every European, with the ambiguous exception of John Flory, the native people are sub-human, i n r e a l i t y no better than dogs. I t i s Flory's a t t i t u d e to dogs, as well as to other animals, that sets him apart from the other whites, and t h i s a t t i t u d e i s c u r i o u s l y s i m i l a r to h i s a t t i t u d e s to the native Burmese. Very much against the grain of popular European sentiment, Flory befriends Dr. Veraswami, and has the unfortunate habit of j o i n i n g i n and enjoying native r i t u a l s and f e s t i v i t i e s . At the same time, he i s the only White who keeps a dog, F l o , and he i s the only white who e x h i b i t s anything l i k e warm r e c e p t i v i t y to the natural l i f e of the Burmese countryside. I t i s against the background of Flory's s e n s i t i v e admiration for the associated natives and animals that the c e n t r a l drama of the novel i s played. Without any suspicion of the sentimental, Orwell evokes Flo as Flory's f a i t h f u l companion. Theyare r a r e l y apart and we l e a r n that every day F l o r y went through the unpleasant r i t u a l of delousing her. The a f f e c t i o n for the dog i s f e l t to be r e a l . Equally r e a l , though somewhat more complicated, i s Flory's f e e l i n g s for Dr. Veraswami. Flory finds i n the good Burmese doctor q u a l i t i e s of moral i n t e g r i t y elsewhere lacking amongst a l l the inhabitants of the community. In t h i s sense, Veraswami i s an a l l y i n Flory's i n t e r n a l and external struggle with the c a l l o u s l y i n s e n s i t i v e people with whom he i s forced to l i v e . John Flory's only r e a l comrades then are a dog and a native, and the way i n which Flory betrays Veraswami throughout the novel might indicatethat i f anywhere the strength of a f f e c t i o n was rather more with h i s dog than a human. Int e r e s t i n g l y , at the very end 81 of the novel when F l o r y commits s u i c i d e , h i s actions prove the e f f e c t i v e destruction of both Flo and Veraswami. Out of some f e e l i n g of comradeship, F l o r y shoots his dog, and then by k i l l i n g himself, ruins the doctor. The act of suicide proves t r e b l y destructive, since with the death of Flo and the disgrace of Veraswami, any e f f e c t i v e moral counterpart to the l i k e s of U Po Kyin i s a n n i h i l a t e d . But j u s t as Flory betrays both Flo and Versawami, i t should also be remembered that these two between them brought about the s i t u a t i o n that forced him to s u i c i d e . A f t e r a l l , i f F l o r y had not befriended Veraswami, however half-heartedly, he would not have incurred the wrath of U Po Kyin and thus would not have been confronted by Ma Hla May i n the church. We may remember that i t was t h i s confrontation that drove the f i n a l n a i l into the c o f f i n of Flory's r e l a t i o n s h i p with E l i z a b e t h . Moreover, i t i s Flo who gives the whole game away. Flory had hoped to brave out the incident by refusing to admit h i s knowledge of h i s former mistress, but he i s betrayed when Flo unwittingly runs up to Ma Hla May and shows that he recognizes her as a f a m i l i a r presence. Thus, j u s t as Flory brings about the destruction of Flo and Veraswami, so they i n turn cause h i s f i n a l downfall. Flory's shooting of Flo acts on the reader's imagination to echo an e a r l i e r attempt by F l o r y to k i l l the pariah dog whose noisy baying at the moon so disturbs h i s sleep. This pariah dog stands as an i n t e r e s t i n g counterpart to F l o r y , since both are outcasts, e f f e c t i v e l y ostracized from a s o c i a l community. The sequence of events within t h i s i ncident i s important, and establishes I think a c l e a r f i g u r a t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between dog and human. The dog disturbs Flory t i l l he can "stand i t no longer", j u s t as 82 his l o neliness becomes for him an unbearable burden. But somehow he lacks the nerve to k i l l the dog " i n cold blood". It i s at t h i s stage of the proceedings that F l o r y enters a revery of h i s past l i f e which t e l l s the reader h i s recent h i s t o r y as well as betraying some of hi s hopes and a s p i r a t i o n s . He r e f l e c t s on h i s own l i f e , c a l l i n g himself a "spineless cur ... a sneaking, i d l i n g , boozing, f o r n i c a t i n g , s o u l -examining, s e l f - p i t y i n g cur". The immediate occasion f o r th i s v i c i o u s s e l f - c a s t i g a t i o n i s h i s i n a b i l i t y to shoot the animal and thus release the night from the dog's dreadful howling. But the account of Flory's numerous f a i l u r e s i n d i c a t e a larger reason f o r t h i s s e l f - h a t r e d . His f a i l u r e to shoot the dog, i n i t s e l f we f e e l a humane kind of cowardice and one that c e r t a i n l y none of the other Whites would have shared, serves as a symbolic example of what Flory f e e l s to be h i s impotence. It i s an irony that that part of himself which he considers to be impotent i s that part which, i f changed, would make him either wholly a part of the European community or a complete renegade from i t . F i n a l l y , F l o r y can go neither way. In r e c a l l i n g h i s e a r l i e r l i f e , i t becomes clear that Burma has t r u l y become Flory's home; he has accepted i t and even grown to love i t . Yet since he i s a part of a c o l o n i a l force, he i s ne c e s s a r i l y alienated from the country. This i s r e f l e c t e d i n his p o t e n t i a l l y good r e l a t i o n s h i p with Veraswami, which f i n a l l y he denies through cowardice. Flory genuinely wishes to be part of Burma and to accept the natives equally, yet the peer pressure exerted from the European club prevents him from doing t h i s . F i n a l l y , the l i t e r a l and the metaphorical presence of the pariah dog serves as a r e f l e c t i o n of Flory's a l i e n a t i o n . Like the pariah, F l o r y i n h i s s e l f -83 r e f l e c t i o n bays at h i s own moon, trapped by forces seemingly beyond h i s c o n t r o l , unable to gain happiness and yet unable to accept h i s p o s i t i o n . He even muses on the romantic dream of f i n d i n g a woman who would share h i s love of the natural l i f e of Burma, and o p t i m i s t i c a l l y comments that "within 18 one there i s the p o s s i b i l i t y of a decent human being". This i s the p o s i t i v e side of Flory's personality, the side which responds to the natural world, yet even t h i s proves impossible to sustain. For he seems to f i n d the strength to shoot the dog, to destroy the projected image of himself as an alienated outsider; but with an irony that presages h i s disastrous a f f a i r with the woman of h i s dreams, E l i z a b e t h } Flory misses the dog who " s i t t i n g down f i f t y yards further away, once more began rhythmically baying". The only and pathetic outcome of Flory's resolve to shoot the dog., i s a bruised shoulder. Flory's equivocal s o c i a l and moral dilemmas receive t h e i r most dramatic treatment i n h i s doomed and desperate r e l a t i o n s h i p with E l i z a b e t h . She i s described quite m e r c i l e s s l y as a shallow-minded, feckless beauty, determined to e s t a b l i s h h e r s e l f within a 'proper' society. As a character she i s l e s s than wholesome, but i n her response to Flory she serves an obvious function. From the beginning i t i s apparent that Flory's way of d e l i b e r a t e l y assoc-i a t i n g with the natives, together with h i s i n e x p l i c a b l e and e f f u s i v e praise for the natural beauty of Burma, are not q u a l i t i e s that she i s about to admire. To E l i z a b e t h the natives are d i r t y , sub-humans, f i t only for menial duty. In t h i s , her a t t i t u d e f i t s exactly that of the other members of the European community. When Flory takes her into the midst of the Burmese pwe, innocently thinking her to be receptive to l o c a l colour, she i s shocked, 84 outraged, and even p h y s i c a l l y disgusted. Most of the important incidents which concern Flory and Elizabeth involve animals i n one way or another. What happens to an animal at a p a r t i c u l a r time, and what response each makes to i t , determines how well or how badly t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p i s progressing. Their f i r s t encounter occurs shortly a f t e r Elizabeth's a r r i v a l . Without any r e a l danger to himself F l o r y rescues her from a harmless water-buffalo: "He hastened towards her, and, i n default of a s t i c k , smacked the b u f f a l o sharply on the nose" (p.76). This show of bravado immediately appeals to Elizabeth's sense of how an English gentleman behaves. Flory has here proved himself to be the master of the animal, and i n a way which Elizabeth f e e l s he should be a master to the l o c a l natives. This 'up' i n t h e i r relationship^however, i s soon reversed when Flory proves himself to be less than a Sahib by attending the l o c a l pwe and then by entering the shop run by a l o c a l Chinese merchant. A harmonious balance i s restored when Flory introduces Elizabeth to hunting, that archetypal past-time of the B r i t i s h Raj. This episode, the culmination of which i s the shooting of the leopard, i s probably one of the best parts of the whole novel, and i n i t we witness the physi c a l passion which f o r Elizabeth i s the natural accompaniment to the destruction of an animal. A f t e r her f i r s t k i l l , Orwell makes t h i s c r u e l and s i g n i f i c a n t comment: "She was conscious of an extraordinary desire to f l i n g her arms round Flory's neck and k i s s him; and i n some way i t was the k i l l i n g of the pigeon that made her f e e l t h i s " (p.158). Thus, for Elizabeth, love for Flory and the almost sadis- t i c revery over a destroyed b i r d are d i r e c t l y associated. We may r e c a l l that much l a t e r i t i s Flory's 85 ignominious f a l l from a horse when he i s attempting to impress Eli z a b e t h that operates as the occasion for her c r u e l r e j e c t i o n of him. Flory's f a l l becomes an incident which demonstrates Flory's i n a b i l i t y to c o n t r o l an animal and h i s i n a b i l i t y to c o n t r o l the natives whose job i t was to ensure that the saddle was properly attached. Elizabeth's unworthiness i s established inan uncompromising way: she i s a r a c i s t snob who caste animals and natives i n the same mould and whose passional responses are triggered by ~ the destruction of the l a t t e r . There i s a s i m i l a r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n within F l o r y too of animals and natives, though for him t h i s i s l a r g e l y a powerful i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of beauty and s o c i a l j u s t i c e . Yet i n h i s desperate attempt to win Elizabeth, he becomes i m p l i -cated i n Elizabeth's destructive bent. Nothing shows t h i s more f o r c e f u l l y than two responses that F l o r y makes towards the gorgeous green pigeons. Here i s the f i r s t ; F l o r y i s alone: There was a s t i r r i n g high up i n the peepul tree, and a bubbling noise l i k e pots b o i l i n g . A f l o c k of green pigeons were up there, eating the b e r r i e s . Flory gazed up into the great green dome of the tree, t r y i n g to d i s t i n g u i s h the b i r d s ; they were i n v i s i b l e , they matched the leaves so p e r f e c t l y , and yet the whole tree was a l i v e with them, shimmering, as though the ghosts of b i r d s were shaking i t . F l o rested h e r s e l f against the roots and growled up at the i n v i s i b l e creatures. Then a sin g l e green pigeon f l u t t e r e d down and perched on a lower branch. It did not know that i t was being watched. I t was a tender thing, smaller than a tame dove, with jade green back as smooth as velvet, and neck and breast of i r r i d e s c e n t colours. Its legs were l i k e the pink wax that dentists use. The pigeon rocked i t s e l f backwards and forwards on the bough, swelling out i t s breast feathers and l a y i n g i t s c o r a l l i n e beak upon them. A pang went through F l o r y . Alone, alone, the b i t t e r -ness of being alone! So often l i k e t h i s , i n lonely places i n the f o r e s t , he would come upon something—bird, flower, t r e e — b e a u t i f u l beyond a l l words, i f there had been a soul with whom to share i t . (pp.54-55) 86 The n a t u r a l i s t i c depiction of these b i r d s at once reveals Orwell's strong powers of d e l i c a t e observation of w i l d l i f e . A f t e r t h i s experience, F l o r y goes further into the jungle u n t i l he gets l o s t . There he has tea with some natives who point out h i s road. I t i s i n t h i s incident that we see Flory as a part of the natural landscape, enjoying i t and p a r t l y giving himself up to i t . To invoke Alan Sandison's phrase, he i s "operating inside nature" and has found some happiness, I t i s true that t h i s happi-ness i s not complete; he needs someone who w i l l share h i s l i f e and share hi s sense of oneness with the natural landscape. He hopes to r e a l i z e t h i s dream with Elizabeth, with whom he has t h i s discussion; F l o r y took one of the l i t t l e green corpses to show to Elizabeth. 'Look at i t . Aren't they lov e l y things? The most b e a u t i f u l b i r d i n A s i a . ' Elizabeth touched i t s smooth feathers with her f i n g e r - t i p . It f i l l e d her with b i t t e r envy, because she had not shot i t . And yet i t was curious, but she f e l t almost an adoration for Flory now that she had seen how he could shoot. 'Just look at i t s breast-feathers; l i k e a jewel. I t ' s murder to shoot them. The Burmese say that when you k i l l one of these b i r d s they vomit, meaning to say, "look, here i s a l l I possess, and I've taken nothing of yours. Why do you k i l l me?" I've never seen one do i t , I must admit.' 'Are they good to eat?' 'Very. Even so, I always f e e l i t ' s a shame to k i l l them.' 'I wish I could do i t l i k e you do!' she said enviously. (pp.156-157) Orwell's purpose here i s nothing i f not cl e a r , and t h i s passage stands as a d i r e c t and s i g n i f i c a n t use of animals to bring out the f u l l implications of a human r e l a t i o n s h i p . The ro l e that the bir d s play, argues for an extensive view of integrated human l i f e within nature, a way of l i f e that i s so obviously impossible to a woman l i k e Elizabeth who has none of the f i n e r f e e l i n g s for w i l d - l i f e which for Orwell mark an enlightened man. 87 Orwell has thus employed animals and b i r d s i n Burmese Days to create consciously conceived climaxes and confrontations. The close i d e n t i f i -cation between animal and native, an association which Orwell would probably wish us to see as e s p e c i a l l y ennobling, seems s i m i l a r l y d e l i b e r a t e . In Orwell's world, i t seems that how someone responds to animals acts as a d i r e c t barometer of t h e i r moral a u t h e n t i c i t y . Another way of putting i t i s to say that moral worth e x i s t s i n d i r e c t proportion to sympathy with oppressed classes, and species. The man/animal i d e n t i f i c a t i o n reaches i t s greatest development i n Orwell's Animal Farm, where the f i g u r a t i v e t r a n s i t i o n i s absolute within the f i x e d form of the Beast-Fable. It i s made very clear that the animals represent the workers and r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s of the Soviet u p r i s i n g of 1917, and i t i s t h i s h i s t o r i c a l event that i s most obviously being f a b i l i s e d . 19 Orwell wrote that a part of h i s aim was "to d i s p e l the Soviet myth", a myth which he f e l t was wholly detrimental to the future of Socialism. Orwell's e a r l i e r uses of animals r e f l e c t h i s growing consciousness of the e v i l s of I m p e r i a l i s t i c Capitalism within the Far East, but with Animal Farm we are obviously i n Europe. While he was s t i l l i n Burma he had developed h i s own p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e towards the Empire he was serving and t h i s l e d him to an equivocal sympathy with the oppressed Burmese people. On h i s return to England t h i s consciousness was expanded and deepened by h i s r e a l i s a t i o n that to f i n d instances of unjust e x p l o i t -a t i o n he need look no further than England. Almost by accidental analogy, Orwell discovered the English working cl a s s and saw i n them the English equivalent to the Burmese s i t u a t i o n : "They were the symbolic victims of 88 i n j u s t i c e , playing the same part i n England as the Burmese played i n 20 Burma". Orwell then had found the beginnings of the general p o l i t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s that l e d to necessary e x p l o i t a t i o n of those l e a s t able to defend themselves from i t , and i t ceased to become a problem only associated with the r e l a t i o n s h i p between East and West. This r e a l i z a t i o n however . was to be l a t e r o f f - s e t by Orwell's experiences with the destructive f a c t i o n a l i s m 21 of the S o c i a l i s t groups involved with the Spanish C i v i l War. The ends and p r i n c i p l e s of Socialism, he r e a l i s e d , were contingent on the methods of power used to bring Socialism about. The most notorious example of t h i s kind of problem was to be found i n the l a r g e l y degenerative route that the Soviet Union had taken with the S t a l i n i s t purges of the 1930's. Animal Farm then i s an attempt to describe a p o l i t i c a l tendency whose ends assume l e s s importance and l e s s c r e d i b i l i t y as the means become more and more oppressive. But before we look more c l o s e l y at the way i n which the farmyard animals behave and how they contribute to the potency of the s i t u a t i o n they help to exemplify, we should o f f e r some comments on the general conditions and l i m i t a t i o n s established by the form of the Beast-Fable. I t has become something of a c r i t i c a l commonplace to suggest that Orwell was a better essayist than he was a novelist;and c e r t a i n l y . i t i s true that The Road to Wigan Pier for example i s a better weapon i n the presentation of p o l i t i c a l ideas than any one of h i s pieces of ordinary f i c t i o n . This problem i s one that a l l p o l i t i c a l a r t i s t s must to some extent f e e l , since i n an attempt to p r o s e l y t i s e a writer runs the r i s k of preaching a point of view too d e l i b e r a t e l y . At the same time, h i s p o l i t i c a l conscience demands that he write about the p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s he finds 89 to be of c e n t r a l importance. From very early on, p o l i t i c s had been the base-line of Orwell's other i n t e r e s t s , and i n h i s novels we can r e a d i l y appreciate how the normal patterns of imaginative w r i t i n g were p a r t l y i n s u f f i c i e n t for h i s p o l i t i c a l needs. A compromise seems to have been reached i n Animal Farm. In h i s essay "Why I Write", Orwell r e c a l l s that Animal Farm "was the f i r s t book i n which I t r i e d , with f u l l consciousness of what I was doing, to fuse p o l i t i c a l 22 purpose and a r t i s t i c purpose into one whole". S i g n i f i c a n t l y , t h i s work i s not a novel at a l l but rather a Beast-Fable, a sub-genre e n t i r e l y d i f f -erent i n the demands i t makes on a writer. No longer i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n , for example, so severe a problem, since animals are r e a d i l y u seful as character 'types', The fable form i s also appropriate to the general presentation of p o l i t i c a l ideas since i t s focus can be better directed towards events and t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e than towards the i n d i v i d u a l s to whom these s i t u a t i o n s apply. Inherent i n t h i s form, however, are dangers and l i m i t a t i o n s . A f t e r a l l , to resolve an a r t i s t i c problem by removing the problem altogether and using an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t f i c t i o n a l form i s not much of a s o l u t i o n . Moreover, Animal Farm i s s u b - t i t l e d a " f a i r y story", and when J u l i a n Symons describes i t as such and suggests that i n t h i s form 23 "there are no human r e l a t i o n s h i p s to disturb the f a i r y - t a l e pattern" we may have cause to worry that the work acts at l e s s than an adult l e v e l . C e r t a i n l y , a l i t e r a r y success which avoids the problems caused by creating r e a l human beings i s a l i t e r a r y success of a circumscribed kind. I m p l i c i t i n t h i s c r i t i c i s m , however, i s the c r i t i c a l p r i n c i p l e which demands that f i c t i o n subscribe to the conventions of fully-rounded characters, acting within a recognizable f i c t i o n a l r e a l i t y . The Beast-fable, on the 90 other hand, i s a highly a r t i f i c i a l l i t e r a r y form, a complex kind of l i t e r a r y game whose a r t i s t i c merits serve a more d i d a c t i c purpose. In t h i s context, success must be gauged not only by l i t e r a r y c r i t e r i a but also by the c r i t e r i a of p o l i t i c a l e f f ectiveness. On t h i s l e v e l , Animal Farm represents a success, the kind of equivocal achievement f o r example that Raymond Williams takes i t to be: "Past the easy e x p l o i t a t i o n and the equally easy r e j e c t i o n , the fable i n Animal Farm o f f e r s p o s i t i v e and 24 negative evidence of a permanently i n t e r e s t i n g kind". There i s a further q u a l i t y of the Beast-Fable as a form which should be mentioned here, since i t provides yet further evidence of Orwell's propitious use of a Bestiary form of l i t e r a t u r e for the presentation of h i s p o l i t i c a l points of view. In h i s preface to the Ukrainian e d i t i o n of h i s fable, Orwell provides a very s i g n i f i c a n t argument for h i s use of the t r a d i t i o n a l animal f a b l e : "On my return from Spain I thought of exposing the Soviet myth i n a story that could be e a s i l y understood by almost anyone 25 and which could be e a s i l y translated into other languages". (Stress i s mine). We should e s p e c i a l l y note the e g a l i t a r i a n connotations of t h i s remark since Orwell i s suggesting that the Beast-Fable has an immediate appeal not only to the l i t e r a t i of Europe but also the under-educated poor. Furthermore, h i s insistence on i t being easy to translate indicates an I n t e r n a t i o n a l i s t viewpoint. We may r e c a l l that i n the Middle Ages preachers often r e l i e d on Beast-Fables as a supplement to the morality offered to the poor and i l l i t e r a t e . They did so because they found that t h i s kind of moral story set within the often humorous context of animal l i f e was extremely popular and thus e f f e c t i v e as a d i d a c t i c device. In a more modern 91 context, the animal f a b l e may reach those people to whom Karl Marx and the double-speak of o f f i c i a l media channels are u n i n t e l l i g i b l e . I m p l i c i t i n t h i s i s the idea that p o l i t i c a l i n j u s t i c e i s made a l l the more easy i f the subjected people are kept i n blank ignorance of the kind of forces that oppress them. Animal Farm then i s an attempt to breach t h i s problem and i n s t r u c t through the proven effectiveness of the animal f a b l e . Orwell's desire then was to write a p o l i t i c a l argument within the l i t e r a r y form best given to the presentation of moral or p o l i t i c a l ideas. The s p i r i t of t h i s i n t e n t i o n goes some way to meeting the c r i t i c i s m of those who consider the Beast-Fable a low-brow l i t e r a r y form. For from the contexts of Orwell's intentions i t i s p l a i n that h i s desire to a i d the undereducated masses to a v a i l themselves of s u f f i c i e n t p o l i t i c a l conscious-ness to recognise the terms of t h e i r oppression i s a masterstroke of i n t e r n a t i o n a l i s t , and moral strategy. Not to recognise t h i s and to proceed to evaluate Animal Farm by the standards of the 19th Century novel, i s n e c e s s a r i l y to be b l i n d to the genuinely humanitarian, s o c i a l i s t i c , • and n o n - l i t e r a r y aims that Orwell set for himself. The story and d e t a i l s of Animal Farm are so well known that no rehearsal 26 of them i s here necessary. Indeed, they are so f a m i l i a r - that many people can t e l l you what the fable i s about without ever a c t u a l l y reading i t . C r i t i c s too often seem to be embarrassed about discussing t h i s work, 27 f i n d i n g i t already properly understood. When c r i t i c s do discuss Animal  Farm there i s a n a t u r a l tendency for them to dwell at great lengths on the a l l e g o r i c a l part of the fable which involves a negative view of the Soviet Revolution and i t s de c l i n e . In the process, the animals constitute metaphor-92 i c a l 'counters' which once understood are no longer of any p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t . This general insistence on the h i s t o r i c a l aspects of the Soviet Revolution and the attand&nt disregard for the animals themselves has led to a curious and paradoxical estimation of Orwell's fable.. On the one hand, the c r i t i c i s m from the l e f t i s t p o l i t i c a l camp sees Orwell "shrieking 28 into the arms of the C a p i t a l i s t s " . On the other, the more conservative p o l i t i c a l pundits see i n Animal Farm persuasive evidence that the road a l l revolutions take i s the road to tyranny and i n j u s t i c e . Both points of view seem to accept the same basic idea that i m p l i c i t i n Orwell's fable i s a denigration of Socialism, as a p o l i t i c a l system. This, I argue, i s not at a l l what Orwell was attempting to do, and proper concentration on the exemplary nature of the animal f a b l e and on the moral nature of the animals themselves suggests more j u s t l y the nature of Orwell's achievement. Increasingly, i t becomes evident that reading Animal Farm as purely a t r a c t aimed at d i s p e l l i n g "the Soviet myth" i s le s s v i a b l e as the h i s t o r i c a l f a c t s of the Soviet revolution begin to take on more objective and more complex overtones. The animal fable implies a necessary paring down of events into more s i m p l i s t i c n a r r a t i v e patterns, and i t i s c l e a r that such a form could not adequately suggest the f u l l complexities of an h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n only p a r t l y understood. If Animal Farm then i s to have any s i g n i f -icance for us today, beyond merely being an i n t e r e s t i n g curio from the 1940's, t h i s s i g n i f i c a n c e must l i e beyond the occasion of i t s s p e c i f i c a l l e g o r y . That i s to say i t must have a more general or univ e r s a l importance. This importance i s to be found, I believe, i n Orwell's i m p l i c i t i n s i s t e n c e on the moral bases of p o l i t i c a l a c t i o n , and the most f o r c e f u l exemplification of these bases i s to be found i n the sympathetic responses h i s p r o l e t a r i a n 93 animals give r i s e to. It i s i n them that the true p r i n c i p l e s of Socialism remain i n t a c t and undaunted by the superstructures of power that i n t h e i r name deprive them of freedom. Orwell's account of the genesis of Animal Farm i s of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t to our point of view since i t establishes a c e r t a i n habit of mind . i n Orwell which makes the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between worker and animal seem almost i n s t i n c t u a l : ... I saw a l i t t l e boy, perhaps ten years o l d , d r i v i n g a huge cart-horse along a narrow path, whipping i t whenever i t t r i e d to turn. It struck me that only i f such animals became aware of t h e i r strength we should have no power over them, and that men e x p l o i t animals i n much the same way as the r i c h e x p l o i t the p r o l e t a r i a t . C y r i l Connolly has written that Animal Farm i s a t a l e t o l d "by a great 30 lover of l i b e r t y and a great lover of animals", and we can r e a d i l y see within the provenance of h i s emotional s e n s i b i l i t i e s t h i s a l l i a n c e between man and animal i s profound and does not i n any way suggest a devaluation of h i s concern for the p l i g h t of humanity. Although the above quotation was written a f t e r the i n i t i a l p u b l i c a t i o n of Animal Farm and thus has the advantage of a hindsight perspective, i t s t i l l a t t e s t s to a t r a n s i t i o n from animal to p r o l e t a r i a n worker that Orwell means us to see within h i s fable. In further describing the genesis of Animal Farm, Orwell extends h i s argument i n a way that s t r i k e s the reader as quite extraordinary: I proceeded to analyse Marx's theory from the animal's point of view. To them i t i s c l e a r that the concept of a c l a s s struggle between humans was pure i l l u s i o n , since whenever i t was necessary to e x p l o i t animals, a l l humans united against them: the true struggle i s between animals and humans. 31 94 This passage makes a s i g n i f i c a n t f i g u r a t i v e t r a n s i t i o n from the working people of Marxist theory to the animals whose subjected s i t u a t i o n i s analogous to i t . Both, the argument i m p l i c i t l y runs, are i n e v i t a b l y exploited by any structure of power that seeks to p r o f i t by the e x p l o i t a -t i o n of t h e i r labour. A sharp d i s t i n c t i o n i s here being made between those interested i n s o c i a l i s m d i s i n t e r e s t e d l y , and those interested i n i t from the point of view of power. I t i s t h i s kind of d i s t i n c t i o n that separates the pigs from the working animals, or indeed the trade union o f f i c i a l from the factory hand, or the Commissar from the a g r i c u l t u r a l peasant. This issue concerns private motivations as they operate i n the p o l i t i c a l arena to seek ends d i s t i n c t from those of the common good. The c r i t i c i s m implied i n Animal Farm i s thus directed at the i n s t i t u t i o n s of power that i n t h e i r attempt to d i r e c t s o c i a l i s m destroy i t s e s s e n t i a l l y moral values of j u s t i c e , freedom, and l i b e r t y . The v i t a l i t y of the p o l i t i c a l l i f e of the fable i s that those values themselves do not die out within the suppressed workers. The difference between the pigs and the working animals needs l i t t l e e laboration. The pigs d i s t i n g u i s h themselves as masters of double-speak and p o l i t i c a l vandalism, and i n the terms of the fable they become quite human, that i s to say sub-animal. Their d u p l i c i t y i s recorded with detached poise as one by one they destroy the p r i n c i p l e s on which the revo l u t i o n was established; t h e i r viciousness i s evoked with restrained but f o r c e f u l i n s i s t e n c e , and the extreme deviousness of t h e i r purpose reaches a climax i n t h e i r conscious manipulation of language. On the other hand, such animals as Boxer, Clover, and Benjamin are depicted i n a laudatory way. Their often 95 b l i n d devotion to the p r i n c i p l e s of soc i a l i s m i s experienced as i n some respects noble and elevating. Through them the f u l l range of Orwell's sympathies f o r the working cl a s s i s established. I t should be noted that w i t h i n t h i s range there i s more than enough room for sharp c r i t i c i s m . The emotional impact, such as i t i s , that the l o y a l animals . cause . i s subtly underplayed within Orwell's astringent economy of expression. Orwell seems more than conscious of the attendant dangers of sentimentality that a r i s e when animals are used to exemplify emotion. Thus, even when Boxer i s taken away to the knacker's yard, perhaps the most b i t t e r example of the pig's d u p l i c i t y , the scene i s managed with c a r e f u l c o n t r o l . This kind of control i s c l e a r l y necessary \f the i d e a t i o n a l issues at stake are to be seen cleanly and without the obfuscation of anything l i k e mawkish p i t y . I f the p r i n c i p l e s of s o c i a l i s m are to remain i n t a c t within these animals, our sympathy for them must be clear-headed and not based on an over-flow of emotional gush. The p r i n c i p l e s of socialism are indeed retained within the animals, and t h i s produces i n the reader f e e l i n g s of b i t t e r anger dir e c t e d against the pigs. It should be noted too that t h i s i s effected a l l the more cleanly by the animals' view of themselves. Rather than s e l f - p i t y , they maintain a mundane kind of cheeriness, what Raymond Williams c a l l s "an assured and act i v e and laughing i n t e l l i g e n c e ... manifested i n the very penetration 32 and exposure of the experience of defeat". For Williams, the recognition that the pigs are d e c e i t f u l i s a moral v i c t o r y , a v i c t o r y heightened through the animals' r e f u s a l to indulge i n bit t e r n e s s of any kind. Im p l i c i t i n a reader's sympathy for the animals i s a recognition of t h e i r inherent blindness to the powers that suppress them. In such works 96 as The Road to Wigan Pier i t i s quite clear that Orwell did not suffer any b l i n d i l l u s i o n about the working-class. In Animal Farm we see that the worker animals are educationally i n s u f f i c i e n t and t h i s i s revealed by t h e i r i n a b i l i t y to read and understand the changing terms of the Revolutionary p r i n c i p l e s . Orwell's ideas on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between language and p o l i t i c s 33 are well-known, and the animals' ignorance r e f l e c t s that of the working-c l a s s . An animal l i k e Boxer, for example, i s suppressed because he lacks education and i s content to believe what h i s superiors t e l l him. Needless to say, i t i s i n the pigs' i n t e r e s t s to keep the other animals b l i n d to the r e a l s i t u a t i o n , and language here becomes the means to ensure p o l i t i c a l supremacy. It i s not d i f f i c u l t to see the p a r a l l e l between the animals' ignorance and that of most p r o l e t a r i a n groups; both place a b l i n d f a i t h i n those that r u l e them and lack the g u i l e to question those to whom they f e e l subservient. Such an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between the lower animals and the workers i s scarcely complimentary and i t i s perhaps true to say that Orwell never rejected the idea that animals and the ordinary working man share a sim i l a r kind of s t u p i d i t y , an i n a b i l i t y to comprehend the most obvious p o l i t i c a l truths. Doubtless, t h i s idea i s a hold-over from the i n e v i t a b l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of animal with sub-human c o o l i e that Orwell would have witnessed i n Burma. We should remember, however, that t h i s kind of negative a s s o c i a t i o n i s o f f s e t by the moral q u a l i t i e s of l o y a l t y and honesty that the animals exemplify The animals' ignorance i n the face of oppression serves an import-ant function. As we have already noted, the Beast-Fable n e c e s s a r i l y enforces a s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of motive and a de-personalising of character. In t h i s l a t t e r regard, the Beast-Fable provides the means by which the hard truths of p o l i t i c s are greatly softened within the metaphorical 97 use of analogical animals. In t h i s process animals act as objective forms through which the working and suppressed peoples may witness a s i t u a t i o n s i m i l a r i n a l l e s s e n t i a l features to t h e i r own. Orwell i s obviously attempting to present the suppressed people with a mirror image of t h i s s i t u a t i o n and he r e a l i z e s the usefulness of an essent-i a l l y parabolic form which has i t s basis i n a p a r t i c u l a r and very fam-i l i a r h i s t o r i c a l episode. C l e a r l y , i f Orwell was to have written a straightforward narrative account using r e a l human beings then work-ing people could only have been alienated by h i s analogical depiction of them as suppressed by t h e i r own p o l i t i c a l ignorance. In representing the working c l a s s as animals t h i s problem i s avoided. It i s true that to be characterised as an animal could give r i s e to equal offence,but t h i s does not occur since the engaging spectacle of animals that speak and think humanly,relieves the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of i t s s t i n g . The purpose of Animal Farm should now be quite apparent, and the form i n which the exemplary education i s set seen as e n t i r e l y appropriate. It should be stressed that Animal Farm i s not o f f e r i n g the poor and the oppressed anything l i k e an act i v e strategy for ri d d i n g themselves of thei r oppressors. On the contrary, Orwell seems to suggest quite the opposite, a q u i e t i s t i n a c t i v i t y . What is_ offered, however, i s an educative lesson-in-action. You may not be able to defeat your oppressors, you may not even wish to i f t h i s implies a travesty of the values you believe i n , but at least you can know who your persecutors are and what forces they use to oppress you. A consciousness of the terms of oppression, and i n th i s case we are led to believe that t h i s means the way i n which education and information i s perverted through the manipulation of language, 98 i s the achieved a t t i t u d e of the animals at the conclusion of the fa b l e . Thus, the animal f a b l e has performed an exploratory function i n discussing the r e l a t i o n s h i p between l i t e r a c y and p o l i t i c s , and has thereby defined a s i t u a t i o n not r e s t r i c t e d to the Soviet revolution. The conclusion of Animal Farm leaves the s o c i a l i s t animals i n a passive mood. With the sense of i m p l i c i t t r u s t that characterizes t h e i r approach to the slowly degenerating government of the pigs, they look with i n -c r e d u l i t y at the fracas between the pigs and the humans occasioned by t h e i r attempts to cheat one another at cards. Orwell said of t h i s episode that he wished to convey a sense of the imminent and i n e v i t a b l e struggle that always a r i s e s when c o n f l i c t i n g power-ideologies meet, even i n a mood of 34 a l l i a n c e . Doubtless, Orwell i s drawing on the aggravation and fragmented a l l i a n c e s between Germany and the Soviet Union, as well as on h i s experiences of the c o n f l i c t i n g factions i n the Spanish C i v i l War. Outside of the end-l e s s l y destructive cycle of c o n f l i c t i n g powers, l a t e r to develop i n t o the Cold War, stand the animals who gaze i n at the farmhouse window with amazement -• i n t h e i r eyes. They are outside of this kind of struggle and there i s l i t t l e i n d i c a t i o n that at the moment they are capable of doing anything about i t . In t h i s , they remain morally righteous as s o c i a l i s t s but suppressed nonetheless, and there i s l i t t l e suggestion that by j o i n i n g the power struggle they w i l l advance t h e i r own cause. The animals then are l e f t i n an apparently hopeless case. I f they do nothing then they remain suppressed; i f they overthrow the pigs they run the grave r i s k of becoming l i k e them. The only hope, p a r t i a l as i t i s , i s to become educated i n the t a c t i c s of power, and then to r e t r e a t from the 99 arena. This s t r a i n i n Orwell's thinking came about as a reaction to h i s personal encounters with the superstructures of power which t r i e d i n d i v i d -u a l l y to impose an order or way of l i f e at a l l costs. The urge to opt out of t h i s d e s t r u c t i v i t y implies a d i s i l l u s i o n with p o l i t i c a l action i t s e l f . In h i s essay "Inside the Whale" written i n 1939, he develops an argument i n which he lauds the kind of p a s s i v i t y which he finds i n the work of Henry M i l l e r : ...the viewpoint of a man who believes the world-process to be outside h i s control and who i n any case hardly wishes to c o n t r o l i t . . . Progress and reaction have both turned out to be swindles. Seemingly there i s nothing l e f t but quietism—robbing r e a l i t y of i t s t e r r o r s by simply submitting to i t . Get i n s i d e the Whale (for you are of course). Give yourself over to the world-process, stop f i g h t i n g against i t or pretending that you control i t ; simply accept i t , endure i t , record i t . 35 It i s t h i s a t t i t u d e which l a r g e l y characterizes the response made by the animals of Animal Farm, and through t h i s Orwell i s extending h i s argument about the q u i e t i s t a t t i t u d e necessary to a L i b e r a l a r t i s t and to s o c i a l -i s t i c workers. Orwell saw a world of t o t a l i t a r i a n governments looming on the near horizon, and he saw the r o l e of the l i b e r a l a r t i s t as one of passive s u r v i v a l . This i s necessary, the argument runs, i f the l i b e r a l values are to be maintained and i f a l i b e r a l i s going to personally survive. In t h i s sense, perhaps i t can be said that Orwell was not a s o c i a l i s t at a l l , but rather a l i b e r a l thinker whose values sometimes coincided with 36 those of socialism, and thus who hung h i s hat on that p a r t i c u l a r peg. This i s admirably r e f l e c t e d i n the values of the animals in Animal Farm who do not allow themselves to become a part of the power process. Orwell's prognostication of p o l i t i c a l gloom and of the death of l i b e r a l -100 ism i s r e f l e c t e d i n h i s journalism of the post-war period. In 1946 he remarks that "We s h a l l get nowhere unless we s t a r t by recognising that p o l i t i c a l behaviour i s l a r g e l y non-rational, that the world i s s u f f e r i n g from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before i t can be 37 cured 1. Diagnosis suggests study and a passive, r e f l e c t i v e a t t i t u d e rather than action, and once again t h i s i s seen within Orwell's l i b e r a l animals. In Burmese Days we remarked that Orwell's sense of sympathy with the oppressed Burmese was often p a r a l l e l e d by h i s sympathy for animals, and we saw i n t h i s a strong bond between man and animal. In the era of the 1930's and the 1940's, Orwell as a l i b e r a l and a man who believed i n such passive pastimes as Nature study, himself became an endangered species, threatened by the powers of t o t a l i t a r i a n i s m that would not t o l e r a t e h i s d e s i r e to be free and to seek j u s t i c e . Thus, he becomes l i k e the Burmese peasants or the English working-class, or the Soviet factory worker, an oppressed being whose s i t u a t i o n becomes analogous to the perpetual condition of a l l animals i n an anthropoontric world. The animals of Animal Farm thereby become analogues of h i s own p o l i t i c a l circumstances and as such exemplify a p o l i t i c a l argument more general yet more i n d i v i d u a l i z e d than that of the fate of the Soviet Revolution. In t h i s sense, the moment of achieved consciousness exerts a psychological pressure that has as i t s basis Orwell's fear for the future of humane values. Given his e a r l i e r p r e d i l e c t i o n for a s s o c i a t i n g animal and human s u f f e r i n g , what better metaphor could he f i n d than that of a group of animals who personify agents that stand i n need of a clear-headed "diagnosis" of the terms of t h e i r oppression? S i m i l a r l y , given Orwell's genuine desire to suggest that h i s i n d i v i d u a l 101 s i t u a t i o n i s a microcosm of the larger problem faced by everyone who does not have power, h i s choice of the Beast-fable provides him with the necessary form that can be at once universal and l o c a l . PART I I : NATURAL SYMBOLISM IN THOMAS HARDY and D.H. LAWRENCE. We must avoid a c h i l d i s h d i s t a s t e for examining the less valued animals. For i n a l l natural things there i s something wonderful. And j u s t as Heraclitus i s said to have spoken to the v i s i t o r s who were wanting to see him but stopped when they saw him 'warming himself at the oven' — he kept t e l l i n g them to come i n and not worry, 'for there are gods here too' — so we should approach the inquiry about each animal without aversion, knowing that i n a l l of them there i s something natural and b e a u t i f u l . ( A r i s t o t l e , De Partibus Animalium.) 103 In looking c l o s e l y at K i p l i n g and Orwell we have seen that t h e i r respective ways of using animals serve broadly e t h i c a l purposes of a socio-p o l i t i c a l kind. Animals were a measure by which man's actions could be represented i n a predominantly abstract way so as to c l a r i f y (and simplify) the author's area of i n t e r e s t . By and large the representational mode tended towards the abstraction of the fable and a l l e g o r y i n that the author's purposes were not p r i m a r i l y with the animal as animal but rather with the ' p r i n c i p l e ' that the animal embodies. There were, of course, many instances where both K i p l i n g and Orwell d e l i b e r a t e l y sought n a t u r a l i s t i c e f f e c t s , but these tend to be overshadowed by more d i d a c t i c purposes. In turning our attention towards Thomas Hardy and D. H. Lawrence we must expect a wholly d i f f e r e n t s t y l i s t i c and p h i l o s o p h i c a l approach to animals and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to mankind. Here perhaps as nowhere else i n the English novel, l i f e , which of necessity includes animals, b i r d s , flowers, and mountains, i s presented with the f u l l authority of what we may c a l l an o r g a n i c i s t and i n t e g r a t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e — l i f e i n the r e a l texture of l i v i n g experience that includes Nature as a whole phenomenon. With these two authors the excessively anthropocentric viewpoint, i m p l i c i t i n such forms as the fable, i s to be eschewed i n favour of a broader and more i n c l u s i v e approach. Nevertheless, i t w i l l be seen that although Hardy and Lawrence s t r i v e to represent t h e i r animals as natural inhabitants of the universe, the old Bestiary moral stances are not lacking. Here too animals are used as devices by which man's behaviour may be juxtaposed, symbolized, and analogized. The way i n which an animal i s treated, or the way i n which a human treats or 104 responds to an animal may lead the reader to a d e l i b e r a t e l y intended and usually complex point of view about a p a r t i c u l a r character. The e s s e n t i a l d i s t i n c t i o n between t h i s kind of Bestiary a r t and that which we saw i n K i p l i n g and Orwell, i s to be seen .in the d i f f e r e n t f i c t i o n a l technique that i s used to represent r e a l i t y . With Hardy and Lawrence the essence and the necessary function of animals as non-human analogues i s i n t h e i r very q u a l i t y of being a l i v e and therefore inherently r e s i s t a n t to the abstracting process common to the fable and allegory. Describing an animal becomes the same technical problem of drawing a human being, except of course that l i t e r a l dialogue i s dispensed with. This may be compensated by the a e s t h e t i c a l l y pleasing spectacle of an animal behaving i n i t s natural way i n ju x t a p o s i t i o n with a human. In t h i s process an animal may indeed become a symbol for some natural q u a l i t y of l i f e and the appeal of t h i s symbolism l i e s i n i t s informing d i s t i n c t n e s s as something a l i v e l y 'other'. Functioning i n t h e i r natural way, or subjected to p a r t i c u l a r kinds of human degradation, animals may become "objective c o r r e l a t i v e s " of the human s i t u a t i o n . There are d i s t i n c t i o n s that have to be made between Hardy and Lawrence. F i r s t of a l l , i t i s obvious that animals appear f ar les s often i n Hardy than they do i n Lawrence, and by and large they occupy a les s compelling place. Lawrence's animal symbols operate i n a large more deliberate way, whereas Hardy's are usually more dis c r e e t and inform the human action i n l e s s dramatically f o r c e f u l ways. There are other differences too that should become apparent when we discuss the actual work, a l l of which r e f l e c t the differences that e x i s t both i n our authors' themes, pri v a t e philosophies, and s t y l e s . For, although Lawrence began h i s w r i t i n g career as a conscious 105 follower of Hardy,^ he grew away from him when he became more fi r m l y sure of himself and h i s a r t i s t i c purpose. Nonetheless, i n a study of t h e i r treatment of animals,Hardy and Lawrence should properly be seen together as partners engaged i n an e f f o r t to incorporate animals as an organic part of existence, c o - r e l a t i o n a l with man and with q u a l i t i e s of aesthetic and moral importance. Furthermore, both read and knew Darwin's work and t h e i r responses to t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of man's place i n nature led to t h e i r p r i v a t e formulations of what the r e l a t i o n s h i p between man and animal was. In seeing nature as "red i n tooth and claw" Hardy saw a natural r e l a t i o n -ship of s u f f e r i n g between man and animal that he constantly sought to a r t i c u l a t e ; the p i t y and terror of human s u f f e r i n g could, i n t h i s view, be c r y s t a l l i z e d through a depiction of animal s u f f e r i n g . Moral regeneration, i n part at l e a s t , lay i n the p o s s i b i l i t y of recognising the need to meliorate the s u f f e r i n g imposed on a l l forms of l i f e by Nature through e t h i c a l considerations. Lawrence also recognised the harshness of natural processes and i n i t i a l l y accepted Darwin's concept of the natural world. Later, he seems to have rejected these ideas, at l e a s t those parts that sought to unite man and animal i n an evolutionary connection, and held to an i n s i s t e n c e on 2 what he c a l l s an "unfolding of what i s man." He did f e e l , however, that there are "animal p r i n c i p l e s " i n man which l i n k him to the other animals but which are not evolutionary. Though by no means sentimental about animals, Lawrence f e l t fond regard for them and saw them at t h e i r best when uns u l l i e d by the de-naturing pressures of anthropomorphism. For Lawrence, animals, together with man, were supreme when engaged i n the process of 106 being independently themselves. As he writes towards the end of h i s l i f e : "For man, as for flower, beast and b i r d , the supreme triumph i s to be most 3 v i v i d l y and p e r f e c t l y a l i v e . " I f then Hardy and Lawrence are to be seen together i n t h e i r l i t e r a r y use of animals, what might be t h e i r common background? We saw that for K i p l i n g and Orwell the obvious backgrounds lay i n the commonly-known mode of animal p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n whereby human events can be masked by animal 'types'. But where do we look for a view of man and animal as c o - r e l a t i o n a l ? In such f i c t i o n a l forerunners as F i e l d i n g and E l i o t we see obvious instances of a n o v e l i s t 's attempts to include the larger landscape but t h i s r a r e l y implies the animal world. The Romantic poets too, e s p e c i a l l y Wordsworth, wrote of the great "unity of things" but t h i s did not s t r e t c h to an acceptance of the kinship between man and animal. I t would seem that the extensive incorporation of animals into the f i c t i o n of Hardy and Lawrence suggests a new departure, p r e c i p i t a t e d by a new Science which had proven the inter-relatedness of a l l things. I m p l i c i t i n t h i s idea i s the notion that i t i s no longer man alone who i s the proper and only study for the novel; animals too are a part of the world and man i s himself p a r t l y animal, and thus i t i s perhaps also to the animal world we should look to f i n d ways of framing a h o l i s t i c cosmology pertinent to a post-Darwinian era. Certainly, both Hardy and Lawrence shared the view that man's domin-atio n of the earth, the rigorous implementation of technologies and mechanisms, the systematic denial of v i a b l e r e l i g i o u s frameworks, were p o t e n t i a l l y destructive forces. R a t i o n a l i t y and s o c i a l law, as the main-107 springs of human endeavour were, i n t h e i r view at l e a s t , leading to entropy of an alarming character. For Hardy t h i s sometimes took the form of the disharmony between Natural Law and So c i a l law, and for Lawrence the egregious imbalance of s p i r i t over i n s t i n c t . For both, the natural world as i t e x i s t s i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between animals and i n a landscape unscathed by mechanical overproduction i s a moral paradigm. In both, there i s a strong sense that the organic ways of l i f e are giving way to the mechanical and that through t h i s man i s i n danger of l o s i n g contact with the Nature of which he i s a part. It i s within t h i s broad framework that we must view the animals and birds which populate the f i c t i o n of Hardy and Lawrence. We must not allow ourselves to forget that any ideas or philosophies that both might have about animal nature are ultimately derived from the simple pleasure that they gained through contact with i t . As well as discussing the p a r t i c u l a r l o c a l function that an animal may serve, we must also be c a r e f u l to discuss the narrative flow and texture within which animals appear and which create t h e i r matrix of s i g n i f i c a n c e . THOMAS HARDY It has become a commonplace of Hardy c r i t i c i s m that h i s peculiar f i c t i o n a l g i f t l i e s i n representing Nature i n a l l i t s beauty and c r u e l t y . His love of the countryside, and p a r t i c u l a r l y . "Wessex," animates h i s novels,and i t i s th i s landscape which represents the e s s e n t i a l ground-swell to which a l l human a c t i v i t i e s are ultimately subservient. What i s not so frequently commented upon i s his often f o r c e f u l representation of non-human animal and b i r d l i f e which shares the natural environment with 108 man. For as Samuel Chew comments: "Man, i n Hardy's novels and poems, becomes only one of the many phenomena of i n t e r e s t to the imaginative 4 i n t e r p r e t e r of l i f e . The old anthropocenttLcity i s gone." In 1904, Hardy himself, i n denying charges that he was a "pessimist", writes: "What are my books but one plea against 'man's inhumanity to man', woman, and to the lower animals."~* It i s s i g n i f i c a n t that Hardy should have chosen to bracket together humans and the lower animals and to see c r u e l t y to either an immoral act 6 of the same magnitude. He derived t h i s advanced and not i n the l e a s t sentimental view p a r t l y from h i s own tempermental s e n s i t i v i t y to s u f f e r i n g and p a r t l y from h i s reading i n such figures as Darwin, M i l l , and Schopenhauer. As a boy, Hardy was almost unnaturally s e n s i t i v e to pain, both to h i s own but more e s p e c i a l l y to that of o t h e r s — e s p e c i a l l y innocent animals and b i r d s . When Hardy was very young h i s father threw a stone and h i t a f i e l d f a r e k i l l i n g i t . The e f f e c t that t h i s had on young Hardy i s amply demonstrated i n the way he r e c a l l e d the f e e l of the dead b i r d i n h i s hand almost a l i f e t i m e later.'' Other incidents are recorded i n h i s note-books and i n h i s o f f i c i a l biography, a l l of which a t t e s t to h i s intense g and abiding concern for the well-being of animals and b i r d s . These innate fee l i n g s were to f i n d powerful reinforcement i n many of the s c i e n t i f i c and p h i l o s o p h i c a l works that were to constitute r a d i c a l new d i r e c t i o n s i n the way that man understood the world and h i s place i n i t . According to h i s biography, Hardy was amongst the very e a r l i e s t admirers 9 of Darwin's Or i g i n of Species (1859), seeing there an augmenting of h i s own i n t u i t i v e sense of kinship between man and animal. We should perhaps 109 remind ourselves that one of the most dis t u r b i n g aspects of Darwin's work was the proof that i t offered concerning the common roots of a l l animal l i f e . Man's, s p e c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with the Ape family was not to be described u n t i l the appearance of The Descent of Man (1871), but there was s u f f i c i e n t argument here to convince anyone (almost anyone) that man was not d i f f e r e n t i n kind from the other animals. In t h i s idea we f i n d ample motive f o r Li o n e l Stevenson's sentiment that to Hardy "the e s s e n t i a l i d e n t i t y of man-kind with the rest of nature i s to him a t r u i s m . T o gauge the e f f e c t that Darwin had on Hardy, we might look at t h i s l e t t e r he sent to the Humanitarian League: Few people seem to perceive as yet that the most far-reaching consequence of the establishment of the common o r i g i n of species i s e t h i c a l ; that i t l o g i c a l l y involves a readjustment of a l t r u i s t i c morals by enlarging as a necessity of rightness the ap p l i c a t i o n of what has been c a l l e d the 'Golden Rule' beyond the area of mere mankind to that of the whole animal kingdom. 11 The tendency of t h i s passage i s quite unmistakable and i t reveals i n Hardy an e t h i c a l a t t i t u d e towards animals that i s the l o g i c a l outcome of the l a t e s t s c i e n t i f i c d i s c o v e r i e s . Hardy's view concerning the moral r i g h t s of animals was unorthodox, and i t probably did not stem wholly from h i s reading of Darwin. In 1870 Jeremy Bentham's Introduction to the P r i n c i p l e s of Morals and L e g i s l a t i o n sought to refute Descartes' idea that animals f e l t no pain. By appeals to obvious common sense, and disregarding the knotty question of whether animals can reason, Bentham argued that animals can indeed s u f f e r and f o r that reason c r u e l t y i n f l i c t e d on them was morally reprehensible. Scholars are unsure whether Hardy knew Bentham's work d i r e c t l y , but i t i s l i k e l y 110 that he knew i t i n d i r e c t l y , i f by no other means than h i s extensive 12 knowledge of Bentham's f o i l ower, John Stuart M i l l . Though himself not p a r t i c u l a r l y engaged i n the r i g h t s of animals, i n arguing so persuasively for other moral i m p e r a t i v e s s M i l l provided Hardy with the kind of l o g i c which led i n e v i t a b l y to the proper treatment of animals. Hardy was to f i n d further support i n h i s convictions by h i s l a t e r discovery of Schopenhauer: It i s asserted that beasts have no r i g h t s ; the i l l u s i o n i s harboured that our conduct, so far as they are concerned, has no moral s i g n i f i c a n c e , or, as i t i s put i n the language of these codes, that 'there are no duties to be f u l f i l l e d towards animals'. Such a view i s one of r e v o l t i n g coarseness, a barbarism of the West, whose source i s Judaism. In philosphy, however, i t rests on the assumption, despite a l l evidence to the contrary, of the r a d i c a l d i f f e r e n c e between man and beast, — a doctrine which, as i s well known, was proclaimed with more trenchant emphasis by Descartes than by anyone else ... 14 Enough has been said to show the private and p h i l o s o p h i c a l evidence which prompted Hardy's s p e c i a l sense of animals. This evidence, such as i t i s , has not been advanced merely for i t s own sake. For i m p l i c i t i n t h i s a t t i t u d e i s the l o g i c a l necessity to depict animals as inherently worthy of respect and attention. After a l l , i f a writer wishes to p r o f f e r a sympathetic notion of animals i n which t h e i r o n t o l o g i c a l status may be accepted as necessary evidence of t h e i r r i g h t not to s u f f e r unnecessarily, i t i s i n h i s i n t e r e s t s to portray them n a t u r a l i s t i c a l l y . His purpose would hardly be forwarded, for example, by a highly f a b l i s t i c manner since t h i s would tend to reduce the animal and render i t humanly. If a reader i s to invest animals with i n t e g r i t y s i m i l a r to that invested i n f i c t i o n a l humans, those animals must be no more and no l e s s than them-I l l selves. What i s being described here i s a strong l o g i c a l tendency rather than a p r e s c r i p t i v e dogma. Whatever Hardy's a t t i t u d e towards animals i t would be f o o l i s h to pretend that t h i s i s h i s main theme; c l e a r l y , he i s more interested i n h i s human characters, and thus he does not always describe animals i n the f u l l n a t u r a l i s t i c manner that we would expect from a Seton or a Jack London. Nevertheless, i f Hardy's animals are to convince us of t h e i r r i g h t s we must f e e l them as r e a l or f e e l t h e i r described s i t u a t i o n with empathy. Suffering animals frequently appear i n Hardy's novels and we s h a l l see that when he attempts to describe them he does so i n order to convince us of the realness of that s u f f e r i n g . In t h i s h i s e t h i c a l habit i s corroborated by h i s a r t i s t i c technique. That animals do suffer was to Hardy an obvious truth, and he saw i n t h i s a d i r e c t l i n k between them and humans. Hardy may 15 be f a i r l y described as a "regressive Darwinist" who read Nature as a place where only the f i t survived and where e t h i c a l considerations were the only meaningful force for amelioration. This force cannot eliminate the pain that i s brought about as a consequence of being a l i v e i n a world where Nature i s i n d i f f e r e n t to human sentiment, but i t can help to do away with man-made pain. In t h i s , Hardy shows himself to be a humane and e t h i c a l adherent of m a t e r i a l i s t i c naturalism whereby the i r o n law of necessity may be assuaged. But though generally committed to t h i s kind of r a t i o n a l naturalism, h i s mode of f i c t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y towards the l a t t e r period of h i s career as a n o v e l i s t , becomes frankly symbolic. This i s nowhere more so than i n h i s treatment of animal nature. That i s to say, c e r t a i n animal episodes, what happens i n them and what they s i g n i f y to the f i c t i o n as a 112 whole, convey s i g n i f i c a n c e beyond the l i t e r a l action and point to truths embodied i n symbolic form. The most f o r c e f u l examples of Hardy's Bestiary a r t occur within the l a t t e r part of h i s career at a time when h i s v i s i o n of the world had deepened and saddened. But some of h i s e a r l i e r work provides us with some i n t e r e s t i n g examples. Under the Greenwood Tree (1872) does not rank very highly i n Hardy's oeuvre, yet i t has charms of a whimsical kind. Its representation of country l i f e , always sympathetically done, reminds us of the r u s t i c doings of Shakespeare's As You Like I t and A Midsummer Night's Dream; Hardy's r u s t i c characters constitute a d e f i n i t e success i n comic characterization. Harvey C u r t i s Webster writes of t h i s novel that "as a de l i c a t e and amusing picture of country l i f e , i t has few, i f any, equals i n English f i c t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , whatever animal incidents there are r e f l e c t the generally light-hearted tenor of the whole; but even i n t h i s most un c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Hardy's novels, a very strong case i s made for the interrelatedness of human and animal l i f e . The point i n Yalbury Wood which abutted on the end of Geoffrey Day's premises was closed with an ancient tree, h o r i z o n t a l l y of enormous extent, though having no great pretensions to height. Many hundreds of birds had been born amidst the boughs of t h i s s i n g l e tree; t r i b e s of rabbits and hares had nibbled at i t s bark from year to year; quaint t u f t s of fungi had sprung from the c a v i t i e s of i t s forks; and countless f a m i l i e s of moles and earthworms had crept about i t s roots. Beneath i t s shade spread a c a r e f u l l y tended grass-plot, i t s purpose being to supply a healthy exercise ground f o r young chickens and pheasants: the hens, t h e i r mothers, being enclosed i n coops placed upon the same green f l o o r i n g . The sense of nature's inclusiveness i s marvelously done here and the a c t i v i t i e s of human, animal, and b i r d are a l l encompassed by the symbolic 113 shroud of the Greenwood tree i t s e l f . The d e s c r i p t i o n of the tree enjoys a generalized s i g n i f i c a n c e for the r u r a l countryside as a whole and no e s s e n t i a l d i s t i n c t i o n s are made between human and non-human a c t i v i t i e s . I t i s on t h i s grass-plot that both rabbits play and where the marriage f e s t i v i t i e s of the l o c a l v i l l a g e people are held, and the processes of each are rendered complementary. This kind of congruence receives a d e l i g h t f u l l y amusing extension i n the chapter "Dick Meets His Father." Dick Dewy wants to marry Fancy Day but i s confused by her coquettish behaviour. He asks for h i s father's advice, as a son should, but finds l i t t l e comfort from his father's ponderous obtuseness. The whole scene i s f a r c i c a l and most of what i s said i s t o t a l l y inconsequential, c o n s i s t i n g of such d i t h e r i n g expressions as "'Ann', I said, says I..." Throughout t h i s incident the reader i s aware of a t h i r d party, Smart (or Smiler) t h e i r horse, whose contribution to s i g n i f i c a n t meaning i s quite as valuable as that of the humans. Horse and man a l i k e are embodiments of the same i n a b i l i t y to a r t i c u l a t e either emotion or argument. "Yes," said Dick, with such a c l i n c h i n g period at the end that i t seemed he was never going to add another word. Smiler, thinking t h i s the close of the conversation, prepared to move on. 'Weh-hey,' said the tranter. (p.143) The already comic s i t u a t i o n i s accentuated by the i n c l u s i o n of the horse and i t i s acknowledged that he has h i s r i g h t s by force of r u r a l habit. Later on t h i s gentle p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n i s resumed when Dick touches Smiler's neck with the whip and the horse "who had been l o s t i n thought for some time" scampers into action. I t would be f o o l i s h to overstate t h i s example since the p e r s o n i f i e d manner i s very unusual for Hardy. The case of Smiler i s 114 i n t e r e s t i n g however i n o u t l i n i n g the temperamental s i m i l a r i t i e s that man and animal may share within Hardy's f i c t i o n . Far From the Madding Crowd (1874) s i g n i f i c a n t l y extends the mode of "pastoral i d y l l " which f a i r l y characterizes Greenwood Tree and by common agreement constitutes Hardy's f i r s t major achievement. I t i s also the f i r s t 18 of h i s works i n which the concept of "Wessex" i s introduced. But l i k e the former novel, i t maintains a fundamental sense of the natural environ-ment and a unity of experience f o r a l l i t s inhabitants. Here e s p e c i a l l y Hardy gives us what Margaret Drabble c a l l s "a sense of ancient unbroken 19 sympathy between man and the cr e a t i o n . " This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y f e l t i n the intermingling of human and animal l i f e . With a few minor exceptions the action occurs within the regularized parameters of farming l i f e and the lambing, c a l v i n g , and harvesting seasons exert a fundamental undertow to a l l the other incidents. The two major characters, Gabriel Oak and Bathsheba Everdene, f i r s t meet through the exigencies of t h e i r care of l i v e s t o c k ; while Gabriel i s tending h i s sheep he i s attracted to "two women and two cows" and i t i s i n t h i s way and under these circumstances that t h e i r r e l a t i o n -ship begins. Gabriel's p r i n c i p l e business concerns sheep, and h i s fortunes, not to say h i s very character, are ind i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e i r welfare. His i n i t i a l f a l l from the r e l a t i v e prosperity of a farmer i s brought about by the devastation of h i s f l o c k . The d e t a i l s of t h i s incident are of i n t e r e s t since we see that the sheep's death i s brought about by Gabriel's over-ambitious but immature dog. Hardy goes to some pains to describe Gabriel's two dogs, George the Elder and George the Younger, and his evocation of 115 the former i s e s p e c i a l l y i n d i c a t i v e of h i s n a t u r a l i s t i c premise.'"" But the younger dog i s more important to the development of the p l o t . In i t s innocence the dog drives Gabriel's sheep to t h e i r death: "Oak looked over the p r e c i p i c e . The ewes l a y dead and dying at i t s f o o t — a heap of two hundred mangled carcases, representing i n t h e i r condition j u s t now at l e a s t two hundred more" (p.40). This unfortunate occurrence ruins Gabriel's farm and forces him ( f o r t u i t o u s l y as i t transpires) to become a humble shepherd for Bathsheba. I t i s worth remarking that the young George drove the ewes over the p r e c i p i c e out of innocent zeal rather than conscious malice and on encountering h i s master " l i c k e d h i s hand, and made signs implying that he expected some great reward for s i g n a l services rendered" (p.40). Later on Gabriel becomes associated with t h i s dog and both are described as "too good to be trustworthy" (p.45). E a r l i e r he had l o s t h i s f i r s t chance with Bathsheba because of h i s frank innocence and throughout the novel i t i s h i s trustworthiness, h i s insistence on t e l l i n g the truth and recommending the proper action, that at once beguiles Bathsheba and yet frightens her away. It i s only when Gabriel has considerably matured at the end of the novel, when he has as i t were become more f u l l y the elder George, that he f i n a l l y unites with h i s beloved. Through t h i s kind of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n we see that Gabriel's character and some aspects of h i s h i s t o r y are relayed to us i n abbreviated form, and the v e h i c l e f o r t h i s i s an incident taken from animal l i f e on a farm. But j u s t as sheep bring about Gabriel's r u i n so they also lead to a happier future where his e a r l i e r wealth w i l l be increased many times over. As Bathsheba's shepherd he shows himself to have a primal sympathy with the 116 animals he tends, and i t i s t h i s a b i l i t y , c e n t r a l to h i s stalwart honest character, that makes him invaluable to the l i f e of the farm and i n d i r e c t l y to Bathsheba. This i s exemplified p a r t i c u l a r l y well when some sheep eat clover and as a r e s u l t bloat out. The only way to save them i s to pierce t h e i r stomachs i n exactly the r i g h t spot. It i s a s k i l l e d art and only Gabriel i s capable of doing i t : "Passing h i s hand over the sheep's l e f t flank, and s e l e c t i n g the proper point, he punctured the skin and rumen with the lance ...then he suddenly withdrew the lance, r e t a i n i n g the tube i n i t s place. A current of a i r rushed up the tube, f o r c i b l e enough to have extinguished a candle held at the o r i f i c e " (p.162-63). As w e l l as saving the sheep and thus the economic s e c u r i t y of the farm Gabriel a l s o brings about a r e u n i f i c a t i o n of ' himself and Bathsheba^and t h e i r attenuated r e l a t i o n s h i p continues. He proves himself the r i g h t f u l mate and t h i s i s judged through h i s way with farm animals. R i g h t f u l mate though he may be, throughout most of the novel Bathsheba i s romantically interested i n Sergeant Troy and to a l e s s e r extent Farmer Boldover. Gabriel oversees her fate and waits hopelessly on the s i d e l i n e s of her l i f e . At one point however, when he i s shearing sheep, Bathsheba deigns to congratulate him on h i s p r o f i c i e n c y and to acknowledge t a c i t l y h i s r i g h t f u l r o l e . But soon Boldover appears and she leaves Gabriel to small-talk with her guest. The following incident then occurs. Oak's eyes could not forsake them; and i n endeavouring to continue his shearing at the same time he watched Boldover's manner, he snipped the sheep i n the groin. The animal plunged; Bathsheba i n s t a n t l y gazed towards i t , and saw the blood. 'Oh G a b r i e l ! ' she exclaimed, with severe remonstrance, 'you who are so s t r i c t with the other men—see what you are doing y o u r s e l f . ' To an outsider there was not much to complain of i n t h i s remark; 117 but to Oak, who knew Bathsheba to be w e l l aware that she h e r s e l f was the cause of the poor ewe's wound, because she had wounded the shearer i n a s t i l l more v i t a l part, i t had a s t i n g . . . (p.171) This kind of b l o o d - l e t t i n g and the communion of almost improper r e l a t i o n -ship that i s implied within i t constitutes i n shortened form the psycho-l o g i c a l t i e s and d i v i s i o n s between Gabriel and Bathsheba. Bathsheba's consciousness of Gabriel's f e e l i n g s for her i s conveyed with a f i n e psychological touch, and Gabriel's mishandling of h i s function as a sheep-shearer represents f o r them an overt s i g n a l that they are s t i l l aware of each other as p o t e n t i a l l o v e r s . I t i s t h i s kind of symbolic action that 21 i n Lawrence was to be extended and magnified. The strength of the i n e r t f e e l i n g that Gabriel has for Bathsheba i s evoked p a r t i c u l a r l y w ell at one of t h e i r very f i r s t meetings. Throughout there i s the constant underplay of sexual f e e l i n g between Bathsheba and a l l the men she a t t r a c t s , and i n c a l l i n g h i s heroine Bathsheba Hardy i s d e l i b e r -a t e l y bringing to mind the b i b l i c a l character whose a l l u r i n g sexuality led King David to s i n . Gabriel r e s i s t s making a f o o l of himself, unlike Boldover, and d i s c r e e t l y hides the great love he has for Bathsheba. Nevertheless, Hardy makes i t quite p l a i n that i t i s her sexual nature that so powerfully a l l u r e s . Consider t h i s episode from chapter I I I . The g i r l , who wore no r i d i n g habit, looked around f o r a moment, as i f to assure h e r s e l f that a l l humanity was out of view, then dexterously dropped backwards f l a t upon the pony's back, her head over i t s t a i l , her feet against i t s shoulders, and her eyes to the sky. The r a p i d i t y of her g l i d e into t h i s p o s i t i o n was that of a k i n g f i s h e r — i t s noiselessness that of a hawk. Gabriel's eyes had scarcely been able to follow her. The t a l l lank pony seemed used to such things, and ambled along unconcerned. Thus she passed under the l e v e l boughs. The performer seemed quite at home anywhere between a horse's head and i t s t a i l , and the necessity for t h i s abnormal a t t i t u d e 118 having ceased with the passage of the plantation, she began to adopt another, even more obviously convenient than the f i r s t . She had no side-saddle, and i t was very apparent that a f i r m seat upon the smooth leather beneath her was unattainable sideways. Springing to her accustomed perpendicular l i k e a bowed sapli n g , and s a t i s f y i n g h e r s e l f that nobody was i n sight, she seated h e r s e l f i n the manner demanded by the saddle, though hardly expected of the woman, and t r o t t e d o f f i n the d i r e c t i o n of Tewnell M i l l . (pp,17-18) Cl e a r l y , the world of 'Smiler' and h i s human consorts has given way to an i n t e n s i t y of another s o r t . Of course, the horse here i s not the main focus of attention but i t i s against i t s animal power and a t h l e t i c i s m — i n many cultures the horse i s a symbol for male s e x u a l i t y — t h a t we f u l l y perceive Bathsheba's charms. There i s ample suggestion that Gabriel's (and the reader's) e r o t i c i n t e r e s t i s aroused by what i s seen, and the e f f e c t of the vocabulary and the sim i l e s f i r m l y establishes Bathsheba's character as at once seductive and predatory. On the strength of t h i s encounter, Gabriel i s 'hooked' and i t i s unnecessarily bashful to deny that the force at work here i s sexual and that Bathsheba's alluringness i s symbolically amplified by her bodily configuration with the horse. One l a s t episode from Far From the Madding Crowd must be adduced since i t introduces the theme of animal and human s u f f e r i n g . Fanny Robin, Sergeant Troy's j i l t e d l o v e r , becomes d e s t i t u t e because of h i s abandonment of her and i s f i n a l l y driven to her death at the Casterbridge Union. While on the road to Casterbridge, Troy spots Fanny and seeing himself as responsible arranges to meet her l a t e r . He does not pick her up, exhausted though she i s , because Bathsheba i s with him and he dare not at t h i s time acknowledge h i s g u i l t . But while a man abandons Fanny and her t i n y baby, a stray dog does not. . This incident, touching without being sentimental, underscores the c r u e l t y that beings may be subject to when people's s e l f i s h a t t i t u d e s triumph. She [Fanny] became conscious of something touching her hand; i t was softness and i t was warmth. She opened her eyes, and the substance touched her face. A dog was l i c k i n g her cheek. He was a huge, heavy, and quiet creature, standing darkly against the low horizon, and at l e a s t two feet higher than the present s i t u a t i o n of her eyes. Whether Newfoundland, mastiff, bloodhound, or what not, i t was impossible to say. He seemed to be too strange and mysterious a nature to belong to any v a r i e t y among those of popular nomenclature. Being thus assignable to no breed, he was the i d e a l embodiment of canine gre a t n e s s — a generalization from what was common to all...The animal, who was as homeless as she, r e s p e c t f u l l y withdrew a step or two when the woman moved, and, seeing that she did not repulse him, he l i c k e d her hand again. (pp.313-14) This dog i s c l e a r l y an embodiment and harbinger of natural mercy and i s meant to contrast with Troy. The human world has abandoned poor Fanny and i t i s l e f t to an animal, highly mythologized i n i t s representation, to a i d her. He understands i n t u i t i v e l y her desires arid a bond between woman and animal i s established, causing the narrator to comment that "the woman li s t e n e d for human sounds only to avoid them" (p.315). She leans heavily on the animal and somehow manages to reach the Casterbridge Union. Once in s i d e she asks a f t e r the dog and a man responds "I stoned him away." The animal's fate now becomes d i r e c t l y associated with that of Fanny asJ both are c r u e l l y spurned. Shortly afterwards Fanny dies. There i s no suggestion that her death was brought on by the news of the dog's stoning but there i s a clear suggestion that the incidents are thematically 22 r e l a t e d . The theme of human and animal s u f f e r i n g i s resumed iri The Mayor of 120 Casterbridge (1886) but here the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the t r a g i c occurrence takes on a heightened Sophoclean tone. Towards the end of the whole unhappy saga, Michael Henchard resolves to pay a v i s i t to his stepdaughter and to make her a present of a caged goldfinch. P r i o r to t h i s , Henchard had alienated Elizabeth-Jane by deceiving her as to the whereabouts of her r e a l father, Newson. In a mood of de e p l y - f e l t regret and sorrow, tinged s t i l l with some amount of s e l f i s h n e s s , Henchard's aim i s to make amends and to congratulate the newly-married couple. He res t s the b i r d -cage "under a bush outside" and meets h i s stepdaughter only to be rebuked by her for h i s heartless callousness. The b i r d i s forgotten and with i t s death i s l o s t the p o s s i b i l i t y of a r e u n i f i c a t i o n and r e c o n c i l i a t i o n . The pathetic s i g n i f i c a n c e of th i s episode should not be underestimated. Placed at the most c r u c i a l l y moving time i n Henchard's downfall and sub-sequent humiliation, i t emphasizes the mindless c r u e l t i e s that natural beings may su f f e r i n an unlucky world. Some while l a t e r Elizabeth-Jane comes across "the dead body of a goldfinch" and we are t o l d that "the sadness of the incident had made an impression on her." One commentator has s i m i l a r l y c a l l e d the slow sta r v a t i o n of the goldfinch "that saddest 23 incident i n f i c t i o n . " The b i r d ' s pathetic death i s contrasted i n i t s smallness with the decline of the l a r g e - s p i r i t e d Henchard, and the episode i s f e l t as strongly as i t i s because i t provides a c r y s t a l l i z e d image of l i f e ' s pathetic outcome. Tess of the d'Ur b e r v i l l e s perhaps represents the most s t r i k i n g symbolic use of animals that we f i n d i n Hardy. In her b r i l l i a n t essay on t h i s novel 24 Dorothy Van Ghent has described i t as "through and through symbolic", 121 f i n d i n g within t h i s symbolism paradoxical evidence of unmistakable " n a t u r a l i s t i c premises." It i s i n t h i s novel too that the character of Tess i s drawn together through a complex series of images denoting her as 25 "a trapped animal." P h i l i p Mahone G r i f f i t h s ' essay on t h i s topic provides us with a very c l e a r o u t l i n e of how Hardy scrupulously makes an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between Tess and a l l other wild animals i n fear of entrap-ment. Through t h i s analogy Hardy sharply exposes the con t r a d i c t i o n between Natural Law as i t operates within Tess and s o c i a l law as i t operates on her and i n s p i t e of her. From the very beginning of the novel Tess i s i m a g i s t i c a l l y associated with animals. G r i f f i t h s has charted the course that t h i s design takes i n great d e t a i l but only a few examples are appropriate here. With the advent of her unhappy l i a s o n with Alec d ' U r b e r v i l l e Tess becomes a v i c t i m pursued by a predator and when she looks at him "her large eyes stare l i k e those of 26 a wild animal." Her function as an employee of Alec's mother takes the form of minding the chickens and w h i s t l i n g to some caged b u l l f i n c h e s . In teaching Tess how to whistle, Alec suggests her unconscious i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the caged b i r d s and immediately p r i o r to the actual seduction Tess lays down i n a "couch or nest ... a l i t t l e r e s t for the jaded animal being necessary" (p.92). Tess as hunted animal i s implied i n other ways too. Time and time again Hardy stresses the s p e c i a l sense of oneness that Tess enjoys with the natural environment. Take for example t h i s passage where Tess's i n s t i n c t to "shun mankind" i s extended into self-deprecation: Walking among the sleeping birds i n the hedges, watching the skipping rabbits on a moonlit warren, or standing under a pheasant-laden bough, she looked upon h e r s e l f as a figu r e of 122 G u i l t intruding into the haunts of Innocence. But a l l the while she was making a d i s t i n c t i o n where there was no d i f f e r e n c e . Feeling h e r s e l f i n antagonism she was quite i n accord. She had been made to break an accepted s o c i a l law, but no law known to the environment i n which she fancied h e r s e l f such an anomaly. (p.110) Passages such as t h i s lead us to envision Nature i n i t s p r i s t i n e condition as a force for innocence and we are to see Tess as sharing i t . To h e r s e l f , of course, she i s g u i l t y and f e e l s the weight and burden of the s o c i a l laws that with her better mind she knows to be unfair and h y p o c r i t i c a l . Her mating with Alec and her subsequent pregnancy i s for her innocent and t h i s more than anything else l i n k s her to the other animals who stand outside society's injunctions. The trap for the innocent animal, Tess, i s the c o n t r a d i c t i o n between her natural innocence and her s o c i a l g u i l t . Her apparent i n a b i l i t y to r e c o n c i l e these opposites and l i v e becomes the t r a g i c burden of the novel. Social law i s seen here as the foe to innocent animals, and one of the forms t h i s takes i s the r a t i o n a l i z e d mechanisms of technology's incursion i n t o the r u r a l countryside. Tess's future i s presaged p a r t i c u l a r l y c l e a r l y by t h i s evocation of man's advance: The narrow lane of stubble encompassing the f i e l d grew wider with each c i r c u i t , and the standing corn was reduced to smaller area as the morning wore on. Rabbits, hares, snakes, r a t s , mice, retreated inwards as i n t o a fastness, unaware of the ephemeral nature of t h e i r refuge, and of the doom that awaited them l a t e r i n the day when, t h e i r covert shrinking to a more and more h o r r i b l e narrowness, they were huddled together, friends and foes, t i l l the l a s t few yards of upright wheat f e l l also under the teeth of the unerring reaper, and they were every one put to death by the s t i c k s and stones of the harvesters. (pp.112-13) Later events render t h i s passage e s p e c i a l l y poignant since i t foreshadows Tess's death a f t e r her struggle to escape the trap. 123 One further example w i l l s u f f i c e to reveal Hardy's structured and i n t e n t i o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between Tess and the animals. In attempting to escape from one of Alec's boorish friends who wants to rape her, Tess retreats to the forest and there makes "a sort of nest" and f a l l s asleep. During the night she hears f l u t t e r i n g s but i t i s not t i l l the morning that she finds out that other injured creatures have retreated to her secluded spot. The pla n t a t i o n wherein she had taken shelter ran down at t h i s spot into a peak, which ended i t hitherward, outside the hedge being arable ground. Under the trees several pheasants lay about, t h e i r r i c h plumage dabbled with blood; some were dead, some feebly twitching a wing, some s t a r i n g up at the sky, some pulsa t i n g quickly, some contorted, some stretched o u t — a l l of them writhing i n agony, except the fortunate ones whose tortures had ended during the night by the i n a b i l i t y of nature to bear more. (p.356) Tess guesses that these pheasants have been shot by a shooting party but have escaped and "hidden themselves away." She remains b l i n d to the portentous analogy that Hardy i s o f f e r i n g , f i n d i n g i n th i s misery only an example of her own r e l a t i v e happiness. This generosity also leads her to "put the s t i l l l i v i n g b i r d s out of t h e i r torture by breaking t h e i r necks", and she sees i n her own gloom "nothing more tangible than a sense of condemnation under an a r b i t r a r y law of society which had no foundation i n Nature" (p.357). The irony of t h i s l a s t remark i s not f u l l y measured u n t i l f i n a l l y her own neck i s broken by the hangman's noose and the unnatural " a r b i t r a r y law" shows i t s e l f to be a potent enough force. Tess i s indeed one of these pheasants that has been mortally wounded and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s nothing i f not l i t e r a l . Both birds and Tess are harmed, i t should be 124 remembered, by the same class of man and i t i s man rather than c r u e l Nature who i s at f a u l t . Through t h i s Hardy i s d e l i b e r a t e l y making a correspondence between the poor and animals, pointing a finger at those i r r e s p o n s i b l e people who cause unnecessary s u f f e r i n g . There are several other incidents i n Tess a l l of which serve to rei n f o r c e our observation that Hardy employs animals as symbolic analogues to human s i t u a t i o n s . Take for example the death of Prince, the Durbyfield's horse. This animal i s the sole source of the family's economic well-being , and when i t dies they f i n d themselves i n straightened circumstances. Tess i s d r i v i n g the animal at the time but i s engrossed by her revery of the good-life that may come her way through her recently discovered a r i s t o c r a t i c heritage. Distracted from her pressing r e a l i t i e s , she allows Prince to cross over to the other side of the road. In consternation Tess jumped down, and discovered the dreadful truth. The groan had proceeded from her father's poor horse Prince. The morning mail-cart, with i t s two noiseless wheels, speeding along those lanes l i k e an arrow, as i t always did, had driven into her slow and unlighted equipage. The pointed shaft of the cart had entered the breast of the unhappy Prince l i k e a sword, and from the wound h i s l i f e ' s blood was spouting i n a stream, and f a l l i n g with a h i s s into the road. In her despair Tess sprang forward and put her hand upon the hole, with the only r e s u l t that she became splashed from face to s k i r t with the crimson drops. Then she stood h e l p l e s s l y looking on. Prince also stood f i r m and motionless as long as he could; t i l l he suddenly sank down i n a heap. (p.36) The animal here i s an image of wronged innocence and Tess regards h e r s e l f " i n the l i g h t of a murderess." Because of her romantic daydreaming her horse su f f e r s and the f a u l t i s to be found with Tess's aspirations to become something more than she already i s and marry a gentleman. There are two men who stand as possible s u i t o r s , Alec and Angel, and as the novel 125 demonstrates so c l e a r l y both are i n s p i r i t a n t i t h e t i c a l to the kind of natural freedom that Tess embodies. To dream of marrying gentlemen who by t h e i r natures are divorced from the Nature that Tess i s at one with,, i s tantamount to a self-denial,and the outcome of t h i s i s the s u f f e r i n g and death of an innocent animal. Tess's flaw i s revealed and i t i s exploited by Alec who i s quick to see that Tess's concern for her family's w e l l -being, together with her profound sense of g u i l t , makes her vulnerable to h i s desires. Thus, Prince's death leads to Alec's opportunity and j u s t as one s i n leads to another so the only atonement for Tess's g u i l t i s the murder of the character whose seduction of her was i n e x t r i c a b l y l i n k e d to the death of the horse. Whereas i t i s the horse that figures as Alec's accompanying animal image, Angel Clare i s best t y p i f i e d by the whole c l u s t e r of images that are concerned with the dairy herd at the Talbothay farm. The s i t u a t i o n at farmer Crick's i s rendered with a f i n e appreciation for the l i f e that may be enjoyed on a farm when harmony e x i s t s between the humans who manage the cows and the cows that are managed. The milking scenes themselves are e s p e c i a l l y d e l i g h t f u l and i t i s within an aura of natural bounty that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Tess and Angel develops. As together they learn how to milk cows and begin to understand that the process i s more than merely mechanical, bonds of a f f e c t i o n spring up. But Angel i s not a Gabriel Oak character; to some extent he i s playing at being a farmer and even though he apparently opposes h i s father's moral and r e l i g i o u s postures, we l a t e r see that h i s response to Tess's confession i s founded wholly on a s o c i a l l y acceptable and conventional hypocrisy. We are e x p l i c i t l y t o l d by Hardy 126 that Angel was rather "more s p i r i t u a l than animal" (p.249) and h i s i n a b i l i t y to forgive Tess i s i n d i c a t i v e of h i s conventional s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s . A sense of the on-coming tragedy i s suggested when Angel, overcome by Tess's beauty as she milks a cow, embraces her. Previously, we have been led to understand that a cow's i n t u i t i v e sense of human harmony determines the amount of milk that she w i l l give. Thus, when Tess's milking of Old Pretty i s so rudely disturbed, the cow's obvious d i s t r e s s takes on a portentous s i g n i f i c a n c e . Puzzled, she looks around and "seeing two people crouching under her where, by immemorial custom, there should have been only one, l i f t e d her hind leg c r o s s l y " (p. 195). This i s hardly an episode worth labouring, but i t is_ a d e t a i l which s t r i k e s the reader as i n d i c a t i v e of the problems that marriage w i l l bring to the couple. This i m p l i c i t s i g n a l i s complemented much l a t e r when on the afternoon of the wedding the ominous appearance of an afternoon crowing cock presages imminent d i s a s t e r . An afternoon crow portends unhappiness and very soon we learn that Retty has attempted s u i c i d e , Marian has taken to drink, and Angel abandons Tess. Such animal and b i r d foreshadowings make t h e i r contribution to the development of the p l o t . The symbolic q u a l i t y of the animal occurrences and portents of Tess should by now be established. When animals appear they do so not only as n a t u r a l i s t i c backdrops but also as s i g n i f i c a n t symbolic agents that make more manifest the terms and problems facing humanity. Also, the intimate r e l a t i o n s h i p that i s suggested between man and animal helps to e s t a b l i s h as f u l l y as possible the r e a l i t i e s of being a l i v e i n a world where Nature and society are frequently at odds. For Hardy, the true paradigm i s Nature 127 i n i t s animal state since i t s dic t a t e s have the sanction of primal r e a l i t y . Within t h i s paradigm, Tess, together with the other animals who s u f f e r at the hands of man's carelessness or maliciousness, acts as the "parson" or 27 nature goddess and then l a t e r as the s a c r i f i c i a l v i c t i m . Hardy's case against inhuman behaviour and s o c i a l conventions i s rendered a l l the more f o r c e f u l l y by the ju x t a p o s i t i o n i n g of the human with the animal and by the suggestion of the closeness of a l l animal l i f e . By common assent Jude the Obscure (1895) represents a continuation of the movement i n Hardy's f i c t i o n from r u r a l realism to the sterner environ-ment of town l i f e . Lavish evocations of natural landscapes are now l e f t behind as Hardy presents a more austere v i s i o n of man's l o t . This i s not absolute of course since the early chapters do convey something of the Wessex r u r a l landscape. But by and large the reader senses a world where most of the characters d r i f t towards urban l i f e and where solace from a f e e l i n g of kinship with the larger natural world i s eradicated. By s t r i v i n g to reach Christminster Jude must leave h i s f a m i l i a r surroundings and immerse himself i n the world of s o c i a l a s p i r a t i o n s . In t h i s novel e s p e c i a l l y , we f e e l that Hardy d e l i b e r a t e l y attempts to eschew the t r a d i t i o n a l pattern of the novel where realism i s supreme and instead invests h i s characters with d e l i b e r a t e l y conceived p h i l o s o p h i c a l a t t i t u d e s that tend to make them more embodiments of values and a s p i r a t i o n s . As Norman Holland points out, i n none of the e a r l i e r novels " i s there such a strong tendency 28 for the people and events to become symbols." Thus, the c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n tends to be more contrived and to operate at a more symbolic and i d e a t i o n a l l e v e l . 128 This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y evident i n the character of Jude himself. Torn between h i s lowly r u r a l o r i g i n s and h i s urban i n t e l l e c t u a l a s p i r a t i o n s , h i s inner d i v i s i o n becomes an archetype for the fundamental d i a l e c t i c s between r u r a l and urban, body and mind, Arabella and Sue, animal and i n t e l l e c t u a l . It i s i n the presentation and working out of t h i s d i a l e c t i c that animals are used with s p e c i a l appropriateness. Many of the characters' p e r s o n a l i t i e s are c l a r i f i e d by t h e i r a t t i t u d e towards animals and t h i s i n turn reveals which side of the d i a l e c t i c a character most n a t u r a l l y leans towards. The problems and tragedies of t h e i r l i v e s occur when l i k e Jude's t h e i r preferences are mixed or when they attempt to mate with a partner whose leanings are a n t i t h e t i c a l to t h e i r own. Thus, although Jude i s sexually drawn to A r a b e l l a Donn, her complacency i n terms of s o c i a l a s p i r a t i o n s does not s a t i s f y him. By the same token, h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l s e l f i s drawn to Sue Bridehead but her apparent sexual f r i g i d i t y makes t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p incomplete. In f a c t , wherever we look i n Jude we f i n d the same pattern of mismatched lovers whereby the two p r i n c i p a l sides of the fundamental opposition of Nature and society are unreconciled. Pigs play a c e n t r a l r o l e i n expressing and c l a r i f y i n g the basic c o n t r a d i c t i o n that l i e s at the heart of Jude's character. His marriage to Arabella and t h e i r subsequent parting i s c o n t i n u a l l y symbolized through t h e i r involvement with pigs, or indeed, parts of pigs. The f i r s t of these incidents occurs when Jude i s walking along a path indulging out loud h i s dream-fantasy of elevating h i s s o c i a l standing by earning a place at Christminster. (The dreaming state c l e a r l y reminds us of the same condition that was seen i n Tess immediately p r i o r to the death of Prince, and we must 129 a n t i c i p a t e a rude awakening.) His revery i s interrupted when suddenly "something smacked him sharply i n the ear, and he became aware that a s o f t 29 cold substance had been flung at him, and had f a l l e n at h i s f e e t . " He quickly discovers that i t i s a pig's p i z z l e , or penis, that had h i t him and the narrator d r i l y comments that "pigs were rather p l e n t i f u l hereabouts." A r a b e l l a and her companions are discovered as the c u l p r i t s and t h e i r motive i s to d i s t r a c t him from what they consider h i s " H o i t y - t o i t y " fantasy a s p i r a t i o n . Hardy describes Arabella as a "complete and s u b s t a n t i a l female animal" and Jude i s immediately attracted to her through the mysterious process of i n t u i t i v e sexual s e l e c t i o n . She saw that he had singled her out from the other three, as a woman i s singled out i n such cases, for no reasoned purpose of further acquaintance, but i n commonplace obedience to conjunctive orders from headquarters... (p.43) A reader should be i n no doubt as to the meaning of t h i s episode. In throwing a pig's p i z z l e at Jude, Ar a b e l l a i s i s s u i n g the oldest kind of sexual challenge and the symbolism of that part of the p i g i s used to suggest the nature of the a t t r a c t i o n that i s being suggested. I m p l i c i t l y , animal forces (Arabella) are being thrown at Jude i n order to undermine h i s higher i n t e l l e c t u a l hopes. The d i a l e c t i c i s thus established and we watch how the innocent young Jude lacks the maturity or the common sense to see beyond the strong a n i m a l i s t i c sexual urge that comes over him. I t must be accepted that at one l e v e l of primal sexual sympathy Jude and A r a b e l l a are a natural match xand i f Jude had not gleaned a sense of things superior from h i s a s s o c i a t i o n with Phillotson,doubtless t h e i r marriage would have been more s a t i s f a c t o r y . The throwing of the p i z z l e concretizes and 130 foreshadows the f a t e f u l hold that Arabella (and thus a part of his own sensual nature) w i l l exert on him throughout the rest of the novel. Hardy said of this incident that i t was meant "to show the contrast between the i d e a l l i f e a man wished to lead, and the squalid r e a l l i f e he was fated to lead. The throwing of the pig's p i z z l e , at the supreme moment of his 30 young dream, i s to sharply i n i t i a t e t h i s contrast." This comment c l e a r l y corroborates the idea that a d i a l e c t i c a l struggle i s i n progress and that the two parts of this struggle are t y p i f i e d by the divergent nodes of sexuality and, for want of a better word, s p i r i t u a l i t y . This idea coheres within the highly symbolic device of the pig, the unclean animal of the Jews (Jude i s the German word for jew); but i n Hardy's narrative i t i s not the pig i t s e l f which i s unclean but the uses to which some people put i t . In mutilating pigs, Arabella and her i m p l i c i t sexual nature become barbarous. The courtship between Jude and Arabella i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y extended by another incident concerning pigs. Jude comes across Arabella as she attempts to round up three stray pigs and he helps her catch them. The pigs are not caught but escape only to be returned l a t e r by a neighbouring farmer. This series of actions symbolizes the concurrent development of the lover's relationship. The pig catching, or more properly the chase, becomes associated with Arabella's covert attempt to get Jude to make love to her. She f a i l s i n t h i s attempt and her private symbolic pigs make their temporary get-away. The fi g u r a t i v e pig i s f i n a l l y caught when Arabella t r i c k s Jude into marrying her. But i n economic terms thei r marriage i s immediately seen to be i n s u f f i c i e n t and therefore Arabella decides to keep a pig and fatten i t 131 for slaughter. The pig, and i t s subsequent death, now constitutes the symbolic counterpart to the marriage. Immediately before the slaughtering scene i t s e l f Arabella's deception i s exposed when she confesses that she i s not i n f a c t pregnant, though Jude does not f i n d t h i s out t i l l a l i t t l e l a t e r . At any rate i t becomes in c r e a s i n g l y obvious that the marriage should never have taken place and that Jude's more powerful desire to better himself i n t e l l e c t u a l l y i s f o r c i n g i t s e l f i n t o h i s consciousness. Before i t can flower the p i g i s butchered, bled, and sold. It i s t h i s incident, very powerfully rendered, which acts as a culmination of the e a r l i e r p i g symbolism and which exposes Jude's intense s e n s i t i v i t y to animal s u f f e r i n g . A professional " s t i c k e r " i s supposed to k i l l and bleed the p i g but when he does not come Ara b e l l a resolves that they must do i t themselves. Jude does not l i k e the idea at a l l and as he heats the water that w i l l "scald an animal that as yet l i v e d , and whose voice could be c o n t i n u a l l y heard from a corner of the garden" (p.73), he i s uneasy. He i s equally disturbed to hear that the p i g has not been fed for days so that i t s "innerds" would be clean; the appearance of a small robin suggests Jude's general f e e l i n g of disgust: "A robin peered down at the preparations from the nearest tree, and, not l i k i n g the s i n i s t e r look of the scene, flew away, though hungry" (p.74). The pig's cry turns from "rage" to "despair" and i n the face of Arabella's callous i n j u n c t i o n that i t should be "eight or ten minutes dying" Jude exhorts her to "have a l i t t l e p i t y on the creature." The d e s c r i p t i o n of the pig's death, wholly r e a l i s t i c , i s s u i t a b l y gruesome as we witness the animal shriek i n agony, "his glazing eyes r i v e t t i n g them-132 selves on Arabella with the eloquently keen reproach of a creature recog-n i z i n g at l a s t the treachery of those who had seemed h i s only f r i e n d s " (p.76). To Jude, the p i g i s a "fellow-mortal" and to k i l l i t requires a complicity with Arabella's r a t i o n a l i z i n g epithet that "poor f o l k s must l i v e . " In compromising h i s i n t u i t i v e abhorrence he loses h i s higher e t h i c a l sense, and t h i s loss p a r a l l e l s h i s e a r l i e r submission to Arabella's sexual advances. Accordingly, propelled by subtle insinuations that i t i s unmanly to f e e l "squeamish" Jude k i l l s an animal. From the p r a c t i c a l point of view, Arabella's perspective may well be correct, since i t i s her at t i t u d e s that f i n a l l y allow her to l i v e while Jude's lead to h i s t r a g i c death. A r a b e l l a embodies the great " W i l l - t o - L i v e " and her preoccupying motive i s s e l f -preservation i n the most crass sense of the S o c i a l Darwinist formula "eat or be eaten." Her a t t i t u d e i s not even r e a l l y animal but i s rather the a t a v i s t i c gloss which man has often ascribed to animal nature i n the wild; i n f a c t , animals generally have a very highly developed s o c i a l sense of mutual r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and t h e i r predatory i n s t i n c t s are c a r e f u l l y c o n t r o l l e d by the powerful exigencies of immediate 'need'. The c o n t r o l l e d sequence of events which has as i t s centre the human management of pigs acts as a symbolic analogue to the human s i t u a t i o n . There can be l i t t l e doubt that Hardy d e l i b e r a t e l y conceived h i s novel and i t s development i n t h i s way and through t h i s we perceive h i s perhaps un-conscious adoption of a B e s t i a r i s t ' s mantle. In using chosen examples drawn from Natural History, he finds e n t i r e l y appropriate metaphors for h i s views on the human moral condition. This i s expressed most completely i n Jude who seems to f e e l a primal sympathy for a l l animals and yet who suff e r s 133 a t r a g i c fate. He i s indeed the humane man who combines a strong but not overbearing sexual nature with a sense of the value of more transcendent forces. But ju s t as he r i s e s above Arabella and cannot escape her, so h i s emulation of P h i l l o t s o n f a l l s short of actual attainment though the lu r e continues. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , of the four main characters Arabella and P h i l l o t s o n win through even though they are a n t i t h e t i c a l ; t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y l i e s , however, i n t h e i r adaptation to conventional stances. Jude e x i s t s i n suspension between these two opposed conventions, as to some extent does Sue, and he i s c r u c i f i e d by i t . This p o s i t i o n of uneasy equivocation i s caught very early on i n the novel when he i s set by Farmer Troutham to keep the birds o f f the newly-sown f i e l d s . He has been taught by P h i l l o t s o n "to be kind" to the small birds and he humanely i n s i s t s that the birds " s h a l l have some dinner" (p.11). Jude's moral sense, however, meets i t s Nemesis when the farmer returns and beats him. I t would seem that there i s something profoundly a n t i t h e t i c a l between human and humane imperatives, the i n s t i n c t for se l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n at a l l costs and the e t h i c a l notion that a l l beings have an equal r i g h t to l i f e . Sue Bridehead also f a l l s into t h i s no-man's land and whereas she survives to the end of the novel i t i s at the expense of her l i f e ' s s p i r i t . When she and Jude move house and s e l l o f f a l l t h e i r possessions "the most tr y i n g suspense of the whole afternoon" i s her concern that her two pet pigeons w i l l be bought by a butcher to make someone "a nice p i e . " They are sold but when Sue walks by and sees the pigeons i n the basket the idea that Nature's law i s "mutual butchery" i s too much for her and she sets them free . Her humane sense of mercy finds an expression through two b i r d s , 134 whereas the more sensual Jude found h i s (even though i t i s too late) through a p i g . The diffe r e n c e between the p i g and the pigeons in d i c a t e s the sensual and s p i r i t u a l flaws that Jude and Sue r e s p e c t i v e l y are prone to. Nonetheless, there i s a fundamental unity of humane sentiment and t h i s i s reinforced when both respond to the screams of a trapped rabbit at night i n the woods. Jude puts the s u f f e r i n g animal out of i t s misery, and we hear through him sentiments about the barbaric c r u e l t y of trapping that Hardy obviously endorses. But i n t h i s image of the trapped rabbit there i s a f a t e f u l irony. As we have already seen, ethics are not always s u f f i c i e n t f o r human happiness, and the d e l i g h t f u l freedom of a rabbit's nature i s not always proof against human and inhuman actions. S i m i l a r l y , Jude and Sue's f e e l i n g of sympathy for animals i s not i n i t s e l f s u f f i c i e n t . Indeed, i t i s expressly a n t i t h e t i c a l to the harmonious l i f e within a s o c i a l community where the ethics of s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n predominate. Within a l l the animal episodes from Jude the Obscure we see how the c o n f l i c t between e t h i c a l behaviour and s o c i a l law i s often deadly and that t h i s opposition i s analogous to that between Nature and society. This constitutes an important p h i l o s o p h i c a l problem for Hardy: how can Nature be both e t h i c a l and i n d i f f e r e n t ? With one part of himself man has developed an e t h i c a l sense (some men at l e a s t ) , but t h i s seems to be inconsistent with the idea that s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n and the s u r v i v a l of the f i t t e s t JLS_ t n e ^ a w °f Nature. A f t e r h i s beating at the hands of Farmer Troutham, Jude perceives "the flaw i n the t e r r e s t r i a l scheme, by which what was good for God's bi r d s was bad for God's gardener"(p.13). The problem i s brought about l a r g e l y by man himself whose often savage urge to 135 survive and moreover to th r i v e leads to the suppression of any f e e l i n g or p r i n c i p l e which would stand i n h i s way. John Stuart M i l l described the l o g i c a l outcome of the view that Nature i s i n d i f f e r e n t but that some men were not, i n the following way: whatsoever i n nature gives i n d i c a t i o n of beneficent design proves t h i s beneficence to be armed with only l i m i t e d power; and the duty of man i s to co-operate with the beneficent power, not by i m i t a t i n g but by perpetually s t r i v i n g to amend the course of nature... 31 This perception, or something l i k e i t , allows man to see that the most humane course he can follow i s to develop an e t h i c a l sense and to oppose that s p i r i t of Nature which tends towards i n d i f f e r e n c e or mere a t a v i s t i c s u r v i v a l . For Hardy t h i s implied the kind treatment of a l l animal as well as human l i f e . Jude and Sue embody t h i s idea but we witness i n t h e i r h i s t o r i e s j u s t how d i f f i c u l t i t i s to succeed i n l i f e with t h i s a t t i t u d e when the society i n which you l i v e takes the opposite p o s i t i o n as one of i t s c e n t r a l ideas. Thus, these two characters become the victims of a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n where the ethic of s u r v i v a l predominates and humane sentiment i s thought of as profoundly opposed to the continuation of progress and l i f e . C l e a r l y , Hardy deeply hoped' that the future would hold i n store a more developed sense of moral behaviour towards a l l l i f e , and what optimism there i s i n Jude the Obscure derives from the sentiment that perhaps Jude's s a c r i f i c e w i l l not have been i n vain. For despite Jude's t r a g i c end, h i s kindness and e t h i c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y towards humans and animals h e r o i c a l l y shine out, and h i s character i s vindicated by the reader's preconception that such attitudes are the only ones that lend d i g n i t y and worth to man. 136 D. H. LAWRENCE Evidence i s not lacking to show that Lawrence both read, admired, and imitated the f i c t i o n of Thomas Hardy. The most notable example of t h i s l i t e r a r y connection i s to be found i n Lawrence's Study of Thomas Hardy, which, although i t spends comparatively l i t t l e time t a l k i n g d i r e c t l y about Hardy's f i c t i o n , never seems to veer away from the concerns that Lawrence saw as i m p l i c i t within the older writer's world-view. Thus, when Lawrence launches . into a d i a t r i b e on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Love and Law, or work, he cannot help but f i n d reinforcement i n the f i c t i o n a l l i v e s of a Sue Bridehead or Tess. And i n connection with a l l of t h i s , he cannot avoid the i n t e g r a t i v e meaning of the flowering poppy whose a b i l i t y to become most f u l l y i t s e l f i s the paradigm of nature that man must s t r i v e towards: "The wild creatures are l i k e fountains whose sources gather t h e i r waters u n t i l spring-time, when they leap t h e i r highest. But man i s a fountain that i s always playing, leaping, ebbing, sinking, and springing up.""*" Unfortunately for some, however, the waters do not continuously erupt into splendour but rather remain thwarted i n t h e i r true course. In t h i s category Lawrence puts characters l i k e Sue Bridehead, Angel Clare, and Jude, a l l of whom, to greater and l e s s e r extents, represent the i n a b i l i t y to l i v e most f u l l y . Most often they are prevented ( i n Lawrence's terms) by the c r i p p l i n g e f f e c t of the smaller human morality that s t r i v e s f o o l i s h l y to contravene the larger impersonal morality of nature: This i s the wonder of Hardy's novels, and gives them t h e i r beauty. The vast, unexplored morality of l i f e i t s e l f , what we c a l l the immorality of nature surrounds us i n i t s eternal incomprehensibility, and i n i t s midst goes on the l i t t l e human morality play, with i t s queer frame of morality and i t s mechanized 137 movement; seri o u s l y , portentously, t i l l some one of the protagonists chances to look out of the charmed c i r c l e , weary of the stage, to look into the wilderness raging, round ... And t h i s i s the q u a l i t y Hardy shares with the great writers ... t h i s s e t t i n g behind the small action of h i s protagonists the t e r r i f i c action of unfathomed nature; s e t t i n g a smaller system of morality, the one grasped and formulated by the human consciousness within the vast, uncomprehended and incomprehensible morality of nature or of l i f e i t s e l f , surpassing human consciousness. (p.419) The larger world of "incomprehensible" nature e s p e c i a l l y appealed to Lawrence, and he saw i t s representation i n Hardy's f i c t i o n . He also saw the disharmony i n that f i c t i o n between the morality of nature and s o c i a l law. His e f f o r t throughout a l i f e t i m e was to attempt a r e u n i f i c a t i o n between these opposites so that man could partake of the greater cycle of l i f e which i s beyond h i s conscious control yet which incorporates him into i t s morality. Then perhaps, man would be l i k e the poppy and l i k e the wild animals and bi r d s , who are a l l i n s t i n c t u a l l y integrated into a round of l i f e . Like Hardy, Lawrence tended to question the advantages which man's progress into i n t e l l e c t u a l r a t i o n a l i s m had given him, and recognised i n animal l i f e a proper measure of f u l f i l l i n g l i f e . Doubtless, Lawrence arr i v e d at t h i s view p a r t l y from the influence of Hardy whom he read when very young. Here, as well as i n George E l i o t , he would have gleaned h i s sense of the vast "circumambient universe" of which man was a part but from which he could so e a s i l y stray. Lawrence's insistence on such things as the superior knowledge inherent i n "blood-consciousness" rather than through ratiocination,, surely i s nothing more mysterious than the p a n t h e i s t i c - l i k e assertion that l i k e the other animals 138 man can respond i n t u i t i v e l y to the environment which he i s i n and which i s i n him. A forgotten aspect of our c a p a b i l i t i e s l i e s i n being able to l i v e l i f e whole and from the source and not to suppose that our only apprehension of r e a l i t y i s through the p e c u l a r i l y human capacity for r a t i o n a l thought. S i m i l a r l y , the f u l l e r experience of the whole body i s preferred to the distended operations of the abstract s p i r i t ; for Lawrence an overinsistence on the l a t t e r leads to a Sue Bridehead whose sexual nature i s repressed beneath a perversely overbalanced pseudo-spiritual impulse. I t i s a pseudo impulse because for Lawrence,body and s p i r i t should not be a n t i t h e t i c a l but complementary. When they are not—and t h i s i s a large claim but one I believe to be ce n t r a l to Lawrence's t h i n k i n g — c i v i l i z a t i o n i s uprooted from nature and we must expect the barbarisms of the Great War. Within the framework of t h i s argument we can begin to discern that f o r Lawrence man i s i n the odious p o s i t i o n of being a human animal divorced from animal i n s t i n c t s . The proper and prime pattern i s nature i t s e l f , and analogues may be found i n a poppy and i n a horse or a dog. Each example from a nature ungoverned wholly by 'thought' i s a l i v i n g testament to i t s own capacity to achieve f u l l growth and the splendour of the flowering moment, and i t i s against t h i s yardstick that man's moral development ( i n the larger sense) must be gauged. Of course, there are degrees of develop-ment and the p o t e n t i a l of a cow i s l e s s than that of a man and the struggle towards i t i n f i n i t e l y l e s s hazardous. But as an analogous form and model, 3 the cow may prove to be an i n s t r u c t i v e force. As with Hardy, the e t h i c a l sense i s b u i l t upon the aesthetic lesson that may be learned from a keen appreciation of natural l i f e . Also s i m i l a r i n t h i s to Hardy, Lawrence no longer saw that i t was proper or l o g i c a l (since Darwin) to assume that 139 differences i n kind separated man from the other animals or that t h e i r presence i n f i c t i o n was optional. I t should be said, however, that Lawrence was not so r a d i c a l l y z o o p h i l i c as we have seen Hardy to be. But such a vast profusion of animals and birds appear i n h i s f i c t i o n that the e f f e c t i s to more concretely enforce a reader's necessary sympathy f or t h e i r l i v e s as l i v i n g counterparts with r i g h t s of t h e i r own. The stance indicated above reveals Lawrence as a B e s t i a r i s t , and as we s h a l l see, a very good one. In taking examples from Natural History and juxtaposing them with human beings, i n t r i n s i c worth or the lack of i t may be expressed. In i t s s i m p l i c i t y and directness i t i s almost Medieval. The B e s t i a r i s t s proper thought of themselves as Natural Historians and saw th e i r work i n the l i g h t of contemporary s c i e n t i f i c knowledge. Lawrence's premise i s s i m i l a r l y n a t u r a l i s t i c and h i s text has no established foundation unless a p a r t i c u l a r animal i s evoked as i t r e a l l y looks and behaves. For the B e s t i a r i s t however, the text i s not complete without the commentary. To describe how an animal behaves, though of some i n t r i n s i c i n t e r e s t , i s not i n i t s e l f of any s i g n i f i c a n c e . The text jLs completed when a s p e c i f i c a l l y human meaning i s found within the d e s c r i p t i o n and thus a p r a c t i c a l demon-s t r a t i o n of how man must l i v e i s e x p l i c i t l y enforced. For the Medievalist the demonstration was most often i n the form of a moral encomium. For Lawrence, the moral insistence i s not so much on how to behave i n the smaller moral sense but rather how to be_ i n r e l a t i o n to yourself, your mate, and indeed your universe. The t y p i c a l actions of animals and bi r d s can help to bring t h i s understanding about e i t h e r by informative analogy or by d i r e c t symbolism. We saw i n Hardy how these techniques would be used to 140 define character or to present instantaneously a complex human dilemma. When we come to discuss The White Peacock we w i l l see examples that d i r e c t l y remind us of Hardy. But we s h a l l also see how Lawrence extended and improved the methods of animal usage to create wholly n a t u r a l i s t i c animals operating i n wholly symbolic ways. Instead of beginning the discussion with Lawrence's f i r s t novel, l e t us look at one of h i s l a s t , "The Man Who Died." By i n v e r t i n g chronology and w r i t i n g of a work at the farthest remove from the influence of Hardy, we may a s c e r t a i n how deeply embedded i s Lawrence's habit of Best i a r i c thinking. We may begin with a lengthy quotation: As he came out, the young cock crowed. I t was a diminished, pinched cry, but there was that i n the voice of the b i r d stronger than chagrin. I t was the necessity to l i v e , and even to cry out the triumph of l i f e . The man who had died stood and watched the cock who had escaped and been caught, r u f f l i n g him-s e l f up, r i s i n g forward on h i s toes, throwing up h i s head, and parting h i s beak i n another challenge from l i f e to death. The brave sounds rang out, and though they were diminished by the cord round the bird's leg, they were not cut o f f . The man who had died looked nakedly on l i f e , and saw a vast resoluteness everywhere f l i n g i n g i t s e l f up i n stormy or subtle wave-crests, foam-tips emerging out of the blue i n v i s i b l e , a black and orange cock or the green flame-taigu es out of the extremes of the f i g tree. They came f o r t h , these things and creatures of spring, glowing with desire and with a s s e r t i o n . They came l i k e crests of foam, out of the blue flood of the i n v i s i b l e desire, out of the vast i n v i s i b l e sea of strength, and they came coloured and tangible, evanescent, yet deathless i n t h e i r coming. The man who had died looked on the great swing into existence of things that had not died, but he saw no longer t h e i r tremulous desire to e x i s t arid to be. He heard instead t h e i r r i n g i n g , ringing, defiant challenge to a l l other things e x i s t i n g . 4 In t h i s great rhapsodic hymn to natural l i f e , C h r i s t, who i s the protagonist, finds h i s strength and h i s deepest analogue i n the bright cock whose s h r i l l crowing wakens him from death. The response that the cock demands i s one of 141 sympathetic commitment to the "foam-tips emerging out of the blue i n v i s i b l e . " There i s no easy paraphrase to phrases l i k e t h i s , but the whole i s adequately suggested by every reader's knowledge of what the crowing of a cock sounds l i k e and what i t s early-morning duty i s , as well as by what i t s symbolic connotations are. Let us analyze more c l o s e l y the function and d e s c r i p t i v e q u a l i t i e s that the cock enacts. E s s e n t i a l l y , we are dealing with two things here. F i r s t , we are interested i n the way that Lawrence describes and evokes the p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s of a b i r d , and second we need to discover what function t h i s b i r d performs. To deal with the f i r s t of these, we should e s p e c i a l l y note the q u a l i t i e s of l i v e l y vigour that the b i r d evinces. In the passage already quoted the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c movements and physical gestures of a cock are captured i n the almost dumb-show act i o n of h i s "throwing up h i s head" and of the apparent voicelessness of "parting h i s beak." Elsewhere too the jerky energetic q u a l i t y of a feeding b i r d engage the reader's at t e n t i o n and assure him that what i s being described has a c t u a l l y been seen by the writer and that the rendering i s r e a l i s t i c : "He watched the queer, beaky, motion of the creature as i t gobbled i n t o i t s e l f the scraps of food; i t s glancing of the eye of l i f e , ever a l e r t and watchful, over-weening and cautious, and the voice of i t s l i f e crowing triumph and a s s e r t i o n . . . " (p.133). There are other instances too where the sense of realism i s adequately conveyed. It should be said, of course, that pure d e s c r i p t i o n i s not Lawrence's main purpose but i s rather a necessary extension of h i s thematic i n t e r e s t s , and that i n many of his other works we f i n d a far greater attention to mimetically created animal behaviour. 142 The cock here i s not humanized even though the human response makes i t s e l f manifest i n the d e s c r i p t i o n . In attempting to describe the b i r d accurately and to capture i t s uniqueness, Lawrence i s evoking how the b i r d seems to f e e l from the human vantage point. There i s no pretense, for example, that a human can know what or how a b i r d f e e l s but neither i s there the equally disingenuous notion that we can i n f e r nothing from t h e i r t y p i c a l behaviour. Lawrence despised anthropomorphism whereby an animal was seen as merely an extension of man, but at the same time he recognised there were aspects of animal behaviour that i t i s obtuse not to see as analogous to human behaviour. To invoke one of Graham Hough's phrases, V Lawrence's n a t u r a l i s t i c d e s c r i p t i o n of animals i s " r a d i c a l l y subjective"."' It i s my argument, to be developed at some length with reference to examples of Lawrence's f i c t i o n , that h i s animals maintain what we may c a l l t h e i r "ontological i n t e g r i t y " and that t h e i r effectiveness as symbols, useful and applicable to man, depends upon the concretely established sense of d i s t i n c t 'otherness' as natural agents. Thus, t h e i r anthropomorphic value l i e s i n t h e i r very q u a l i t y of being themselves and inherently opposed to absorption into the human scale of things. Rather, from Lawrence's point of view, i t i s humans, i n part at l e a s t , who must become zoophiled. The cock i s su c c e s s f u l l y evoked i n i t s potent phy s i c a l aliveness; what F. R. Leavis would c a l l the "concrete thereness of f e l t l i f e " i s achieved i n the narrative l i n e . Contingent on t h i s success i s the v a l i d i t y of the f i g u r a t i v e t r a n s i t i o n between the l i f e - p r i n c i p l e of the b i r d and the to-be achieved l i f e - f o r c e of the resurrected Ch r i s t f i g u r e . As every reader knows "The Man Who Died" i s an audacious (some say blasphemous) rewriting of the events following Christ's c r u c i f i x i o n . Instead 143 of ascending unto the father i n the most usual and transcendent sense of the expression, C h r i s t i s re-born i n the f l e s h and finds " f u l l consciousness of being" i n r e a l i z i n g the p h a l l i c necessity of h i s own sexual nature. The l a t t e r part of the story deals with h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with the p r i e s t e s s of I s i s , and i t s excessively gnomic s t y l e i s not convincing. But the f i r s t part which concerns Christ's i n i t i a l awakening and h i s correspondence with the l i f e of the cock, i s t o t a l l y successful. I t i s here with what Mark Spilka c a l l s "the close, v i v i d contact between the C h r i s t - f i g u r e and the 6 -spunky young gamecock", that Lawrence i s at h i s most impressive. There i s a strong i d e n t i f i c a t i o n then between C h r i s t and the cock. It i s the cock's crow more than i t s physical appearance that e l e c t r i f i e s Christ's senses and urges him into a sympathetic "defiant challenge to a l l other things e x i s t i n g . " One morning the cock escapes from the cord that i s p a r t l y s t i f l i n g i t s p h y s i c a l and s p i r i t u a l sense and i t i s at t h i s point of freedom that he crowed "a loud and s p l i t t i n g crow." To t h i s c a l l C h r i s t responds and f i n a l l y turns h i s back on "the sickness of death i n l i f e . " From the beginning Chr i s t sees i n the l i f e of the cock a natural flow which bursts out i n a potent way and he r e a l i z e s that he must follow; the New Testament i n j u c t i o n to "follow me" i s inverted and the b i r d becomes the i r o n i c but appropriate master: "And always the man who had died saw not the b i r d alone, but the short, sharp wave of l i f e of which the b i r d was the c r e s t " (p.133). This notion of 'what is_ the cock?' i s extended when i t mates with a hen: Then when h i s favourite hen came s t r o l l i n g unconcernedly near him, emitting the l u r e , he pounced on her with a l l h i s feathers v i b r a t i n g . And the man who had died watched the unsteady, rocking 144 v i b r a t i o n of the bent b i r d , and i t was not the b i r d he saw, but one wave-tip of l i f e overlapping for a minute another, i n the tide of the swaying ocean of l i f e . And the destiny of l i f e seemed more f i e r c e and compulsive to him even than the destiny of death. The doom of death was a shadow compared to the raging destiny of l i f e , the determined surge of l i f e . (p.134) Of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h i s passage, an i n t e r e s t i n t e n s i f i e d by our understanding that when Lawrence wrote t h i s he was dying, i s the sense of the surging, passionate "wave-tip" of l i f e which i s seen to act according to i t s nature with no subjection to the i n d i v i d u a l consciousness of the b i r d s . The rhythmic procreation, suggested by the surging r e p e t i t i v e q u a l i t y of the prose, i s an organic occurrence which involves and incorp-orates a l l i n d i v i d u a l s and yet i s greater than any. Thus, the b i r d i s at once supremely i t s e l f and yet only a part of the larger organism; i t i s a l i v e symbol of a force within and beyond i t s e l f . In a l e t t e r , Lawrence wrote that symbolism "avoids the I and puts aside the egoist."^ He develops t h i s point by arguing that man must take h i s "decent place" i n the whole which can be created by symbolism. What was not needed was the symbolism which we see only as a "subjective expression". The procreation of the cock admirably f i t s t h i s p r e s c r i p t i v e notion of what an e f f e c t i v e symbol might be, and C h r i s t recognises the general a p p l i c a t i o n that the symbol points to. The b i r d had come in t o l i f e to f u l f i l l i t s e l f but had been p a r t l y prevented by the cord that was attached to i t s l e g . S i m i l a r l y , Christ was hampered by h i s own peculiar cord, h i s submission to a s p i r i t -u a l ised d e a t h j e g o t i s t i c a l to Lawrence's way of thinking, that saw the denial of the f l e s h as the r i g h t path to heavenly s a l v a t i o n . C h r i s t i s bound by analogy to the cock: 145 Yet the flame of l i f e burned up to a sharp point i n the cock, so that i t eyed askance and haughtily the man who had died. And the man smiled and held the b i r d dear, and he said to i t : 'Surely thou a r t r i s e n to the Father, among b i r d s . ' And the young cock, answering, crowed. (p.140) The same ascension occurs when Christ meets the prieste s s of I s i s . The bird, 's s i g n i f i c a n c e i s to be found i t i t s r o l e as a s p i r i t u a l exemplum. When Chris t meets several of h i s d i s c i p l e s on the road they ask him why he i s carrying a cock. He answers: "I am a healer and the b i r d hath v i r t u e ... I believe the b i r d i s f u l l of l i f e and v i r t u e " (p.145). The exemplary q u a l i t y of the b i r d i s offered as a new kind of b e l i e f system, pagan at i t s roots, which sees wild animal and b i r d l i f e as moral paradigm. The Medieval B e s t i a r i s t s believed that the moral wonders of the animal kingdom were put on the earth as d i r e c t helpmeets for man. Cl e a r l y , Lawrence did not subscribe to quite t h i s belief' but i f we dismiss from our minds the C h r i s t i a n concept of God and put i n i t s stead a pant h e i s t i c god of Nature we might begin to see the connection between Lawrence and 8 the Medieval mind. Lawrence i s not much interested i n the smaller morality of doing good works etc.; he i s more concerned with the larger cosmic morality i n which r i g h t and wrong are subservient to l i f e and non-9 l i f e . Animals and birds can teach a jaded humanity what th i s l i f e i s . When the cock finds i t s hens and defeats i t s r i v a l s i t has achieved i t s e l f , and at th i s point C h r i s t leaves him behind to continue the search for the same thing. But i t should be stressed that the cock's development i s not at a l l i d e n t i c a l with C h r i s t ' s . Lawrence was not so naive as to suppose that there was exact congruence between animal and human c a p a b i l i t i e s . As he notes, "there are animal p r i n c i p l e s i n man", but he s t i l l f e e l s that man i s a very d i f f e r e n t kind of animal. Man indeed can behave as the cock does, as i s seen when the young slave rapes the female slave, but no creative " f u l l n e s s of being" w i l l spring from t h i s . The cock's nature i s i t s own and man's i s very d i f f e r e n t from i t . Both may indeed be s t r i v i n g for the same general sense of f u l f i l l m e n t but the degree of t h i s attainment, and i t s e s s e n t i a l features, w i l l be r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t . To use one of Lawrence's epithets, an inversion of the famous A r i s t o t e l i a n phrase, "man i s an animal who thinks", and he has a nature that must integrate and accomodate h i s purely i n t e l l e c t u a l capacities.. I t i s not enough for man merely to reproduce himself and to defeat other contenders. Like C h r i s t , he must f i n d a woman with whom he i s i n accord and must then struggle to allow h i s f u l l s e n s i t i v i t y to manifest i t s e l f within the r e l a t i o n s h i p . There i s no sure way to success and the p i t f a l l s , suggested by the priestess's mother and the Roman s o l d i e r s , are many. But, i t i s i n s i s t e d , the rewards are also great i f man as a fountain i s always "springing up." The cock then i s l e f t behind by Christ, both l i t e r a l l y and metaphoric-a l l y , and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between man and b i r d i s sharply discontinued. This i s important to the narrative a r t of Lawrence's use of birds and animals. We may see t h i s importance by over-viewing the narrative pattern of the cock's use. At the beginning of the story there i s only the b i r d , resplendent i n i t s aliveness; i t s crowing awakens the Chris t f i g u r e and these two come together and are i d e n t i f i e d i n aim. Once th i s natural i d e n t i f i c a t i o n has served i t s purpose and Christ has learned the required lesson, the unity of experience i s severed and the b i r d emerges as what i t 147 always was—a b i r d . As such, and no longer as a natural symbol, i t i s l e f t to l i v e out i t s l i f e . Its function has been nothing more than to be i t s e l f but i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e has been embodied i n the q u a l i t i e s that inhere i n i t and yet are outside of i t . The surge of Lawrence's a r t i s t i c need to convey f u l l s i g n i f i c a n c e of meaning has coincided with the b i r d ' s i n t e r e s t i n the l i f e of C h r i s t , and when t h i s has occurred the texture of the prose becomes less p o e t i c a l l y symbolic. This leaves the animal as an animal, seen for what i t i s rather than for what i t me'ans and unassimilated into the human i d e n t i t y . Thus, Lawrence maintains h i s naturalism and yet allows his b i r d to become symbolic, and the emphasis of e i t h e r at a given point i n the narrative i s c o n t r o l l e d and represented i n the surge and regress of the prose. I have been attempting to describe how animals and birds t y p i c a l l y work i n Lawrence. There are many v a r i a t i o n s on t h i s general method but the p r i n c i p l e Bestiary mode remains consistent. I t reveals that Lawrence had a very close knowledge of Natural History and r e a d i l y saw how appropriate i t could be i n o u t l i n i n g human s i t u a t i o n s . Indeed, i f we look outside of his f i c t i o n we f i n d ample evidence that Lawrence f e l t a keen i n t e r e s t i n watching animal and b i r d l i f e and i n using h i s observations to delineate character or to suggest human weakness and strength. Of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t are short biographical sketches such as "Adolph" and "Rex" both of which portray l i f e i n the Lawrence household. The former of these describes with charming intimacy what happens when the father brings home a t i n y r a b b i t . The c h i l d r e n learn the lesson that i t i s impossible to love a wild animal or to smother i t with a f f e c t i o n . The same theme occurs i n the l a t t e r 148 story, although here i t i s shown that the modern domestic dog can indeed be loved but only at the expense of i t s proper nature: "We should not have loved Rex so much, and he should not have loved us. There should have been a measure. We tended, a l l of us, to overstep the l i m i t s of our own natures. He should have stayed outside human l i m i t s , we should have stayed outside canine l i m i t s . Nothing i s more f a t a l than the disaster of too much love" (Phoenix, p.21). The separateness of species i s here strongly indicated, and i t p a r a l l e l s other notions of separateness that we f i n d i n Lawrence. On numerous occasions he expostulated on the idea that people, e s p e c i a l l y married couples, should not regard themselves as two parts of one whole but as two wholes that come together to form a new e n t i t y larger than the two but incorporating both. With regard to animals, t h i s idea i s picked up very extensively i n "Love Was Once a L i t t l e Boy." This essay focuses on the problem of 'love' and the question of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between two i d e n t i t i e s crops up. Lawrence helps to c l a r i f y h i s argument through t h i s d e f i n i t i o n : "...so that love as a desire, i s balanced against the opposite desire, to maintain the i n t e g r i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l s e l f " (Phoenix I I , p.444). The s t a b i l i t y of a r e l a t i o n s h i p , the argument continues, depends on maintaining the o n t o l o g i c a l i n t e g r i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l . But how i s t h i s equilibrium to be achieved? Lawrence proceeds to a r r i v e at an analogous evocation of t h i s problem through a lengthy d e s c r i p t i o n of h i s cow Susan. The passage i s extremely long, but should be quoted i n f u l l : How can I e q u i l i b r a t e myself with my black cow Susan? I c a l l her d a i l y at s i x o'clock. And sometimes she comes. But sometimes, again, she doesn't, and I have to hunt her away among the timber. 149 Possibly she's l y i n g peacefully i n cowy i n e r t i a , l i k e a black Hindu statue, among the oak-scrub. Then she r i s e s with a sighing heave. My c a l l i n g was a mere nothing against the black s t i l l n e s s of her cowy p a s s i v i t y . Or possibly she i s away down i n the bottom corner, lowing sotto voce and b l i n d l y to some f a r - o f f b u l l . Then when I c a l l at her, and approach, she screws round her t a i l and f l i n g s her sharp, e l a s t i c haunch i n the a i r with a kick and a f l i c k , and plunges o f f l i k e a buck-rabbit, or l i k e a black demon among the pine trees, her udder swinging l i k e a chime of b e l l s . Or possibly the coyotes have been howling i n the night along the top fence. And then I c a l l i n vain. I t ' s a question of saddling a horse and s i f t i n g the bottom timber. And there at l a s t the horse suddenly winces, s t a r t s : and with a c e r t a i n pang of fear I too catch sight of something black and motionless and a l i v e , and t e r r i b l y s i l e n t , among the tree-trunks. It i s Susan, her ears apart, standing l i k e some spider suspended motionless by a thread, from the web of the eternal s i l e n c e . The strange f a c u l t y she has, cow-given, of becoming a suspended ghost, hidden i n the very crevices of the atmosphere. It i s something i n her w i l l . It i s her tarnhelm. And then, she doesn't know me. If I am afoot, she knows my voice, but not the advancing me, i n a blue s h i r t and cord trousers. She waits, suspended by the thread, t i l l I come close. Then she reaches forward her nose, to smell. She smells my hand: gives a l i t t l e snort, exhaling her breath, with a kind of contempt, turns, and ambles up towards the homestead, p e r f e c t l y assured. I f I am on horseback, although she knows the grey horse p e r f e c t l y w e l l , at the same time she doesn't know what i t i s . She waits t i l l the wicked Azul, who i s a born cow-punching pony, advances mischievously at her. Then round she swings, as i f on the bl a s t of some sudden wind, and with her ears back, her head rather down, her black back curved, up she goes, through the timber, with s u r p r i s i n g , swimming swiftness. And the Azul, snorting with j o l l y mischief, dashes a f t e r her, and when she i s sa f e l y i n her milking place, s t i l l she watches with her great black eyes as I dismount. And she has to smell my hand before the cowy peace of being milked enters her blood. T i l l then, there i s something roaring i n the chaos of her universe. When her cowy peace comes, then her universe i s s i l e n t , and l i k e the sea with an even t i d e , without s a i l or smoke: nothing. That i s Susan, my black cow. And how am I going to e q u i l i b r a t e myself with her? Or even, i f you prefer the word, to get i n harmony with her? Equilibrium? Harmony? with that black blossom.' Try i t ! (p.446) Apart from anything else, t h i s i s an extremely e f f e c t i v e and amusing evocation of a cow's t y p i c a l behaviour. Of course, the observation i s " r a d i c a l l y subjective" but t h i s should not be confused with anthropomorphism. 150 Exactly the opposite i s the i n t e n t i o n of t h i s passage. As Graham Hough remarks, with another context i n mind, " i t i s more an attempt to put common human s u b j e c t i v i t y i n i t s place by showing the myriad of queer, separate, non-human existences around i t . " " * ^ This i s the e f f e c t of Lawrence's de s c r i p t i o n of the cow and h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p to i t . Susan i s an objective f a c t , s o l i d , capricious, and r e s i s t a n t to human consciousness, and i n thus describing her Lawrence has conveyed her essence and her i s o l a t e d d i s t i n c t -ness; t r y as he might, he cannot e q u i l i b r a t e himself with Susan, and her separate isolateness remains unique. To Lawrence t h i s i s cause for celebration since i t stands as proof against the anthropomorphic tendency: "Anthropomor-phism, that allows nothing to c a l l i t s soul i t s own, save anthropos: and only a s p e c i a l brand, even of him!"^ The sheer f a c t of Susan's p h y s i c a l being, together with her obtuse r e f u s a l to be consistent or reasonable i n her dealings with Lawrence, m i l i t a t e s against the 'melting-pot' notion which i s assumed within anthropomorphism. The same tendency that t r i e s to make animals sub-humans, s t r i v e s to make of marriage a merging of i d e n t i t i e s . Whereas Lawrence cannot ' e q u i l i b r a t e ' himself with Susan, he can have a r e l a t i o n s h i p with her: "There is. a sort of r e l a t i o n between us. And t h i s r e l a t i o n i s part of the mystery of love: the i n d i v i d u a l i t y on each side, mine and Susan's, suspended i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p " (p.447). The word 'love' here i s strong when we r e c a l l that Lawrence i s t a l k i n g about a cow, but of course what he means by 'love' has nothing to do with our romantic notions. Between himself and Susan there i s 'love', a r e l a t i o n s h i p which both share and yet which does not consume them. Later, he describes t h i s 151 as a " t h i r d " l e v e l of experience, the "stream of desire". Lawrence's use of Susan i s extremely l i t e r a l and we cannot only assume for her a f i g u r -a t i v e r o l e . What he i s saying i s that man and animal, himself and Susan, have a profound r e l a t i o n s h i p which partakes of a large sense of the seamless qu a l i t y of Nature and her various l i v i n g forms. But at the same time, Susan is_ f i g u r a t i v e i n that she represents i n concrete form a l i v i n g demonstration of l i f e ' s 'otherness'. The phy s i c a l object i s i t s e l f the r e a l i t y of the subjective argument. There i s one further example of Lawrence's n o n - f i c t i o n prose that must be adduced here since i t provides us with valuable ideas about what Lawrence thought of animals and how he saw them i n r e l a t i o n to man. "Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine" faces the problem of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between species. For an engaged Zoophile, much of what Lawrence has to say i s disappointing. Lawrence, whose " d i s l i k e of k i l l i n g him [a porcupine] was greater than the d i s l i k e of him "(Phoenix I I , p.460), turns v o l t a face and k i l l s an animal. Motives for t h i s action may be found i n the porcupine's nuisance fa c t o r ; i t brings great pain to some l o c a l dogs who t r y to i n t e r f e r e with i t , but more importantly, i t i s d i r e c t l y harmful to the l i f e of the ranch. The animal i s an annoyance to human beings and t h i s serves as an adequate r a t i o n a l e f or i t s death. The s i t u a t i o n i s r e a l l y quite p l a i n and represents a predicament that has been f e l t by countless s e n s i t i v e men engaged i n l i v i n g o f f the land. Jessie Chambers wrote that Lawrence "would 12 shiver i n pain" when he heard "the cry of a rabbit tracked by a weasel," and t h i s kind of s e n s i t i v i t y i s i n accord with what we f e e l about h i s character. 152 Out of t h i s incident come Lawrence's dictums on the subject of predation: "In nature, one creature devours another, and t h i s i s an e s s e n t i a l part of a l l existence and of a l l being. I t i s not something to lament over, nor something to t r y to reform" (p.467). From t h i s Lawrence proceeds to argue that man i s at the very end of the food chain and more-over, that man i s the 'highest' form of l i f e , "more v i v i d l y a l i v e . " Thus, there are degrees i n nature and i t i s f o o l i s h to assert that a l l creatures are equal and worthy of the same r i g h t s : Nature simply i s n ' t b u i l t that way. But over and above t h i s syndrome of predation, Lawrence posi t s a realm of i n d i v i d u a l being i n which "any creature" may a t t a i n " i t s own l i v i n g s e l f " and escape the d u l l round of s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n . This i s true for a l l l i v i n g creatures, not man alone, although as we saw i n "The Man Who Died", i t i s man whose creative p o t e n t i a l i s greatest. An animal, i n c l u d i n g the human va r i e t y , i s both an i n d i v i d u a l and part of a species and each existence i s i n a sense separate. Man's predatory i n s t i n c t i s very d i f f e r e n t from his impulse to see the beauty and v i r t u e i n a cow. This apparently contradictory reasoning i s magnificently exemplified i n Sons and Lovers where Lawrence 13 evokes so subtly the v a r i e t y of ways that flowers can be picked. There i s a way of p i c k i n g them that i s e g o i s t i c a l and another that i s more i n harmony, and s i m i l a r l y there i s the slaughter of c a t t l e at the abbatoir and there i s the p r i m i t i v e ' s l o v i n g reverence for the animal that i s being k i l l e d . The former i s purely destructive but the l a t t e r partakes of the greater mystery of the inter-relatedness of a l l l i v i n g things. The value of these ideas l i e s not so much i n what they t e l l us about the general theme of predation, "eat or be eaten", but what they s i g n i f y 153 about Lawrence's pragmatic approach to animal l i f e . One c r i t i c notes that Lawrence's apprehension of the world " i s f a r closer to that of p r i m i t i v e r e l i g i o n , which had not thought to d i s t i n g u i s h c l e a r l y between organic and inorganic, s p i r i t and matter, but saw the whole universe and a l l parts of 14 i t as simply and obviously a l i v e . " We are not to i n f e r from t h i s that Lawrence was at a l l p r i m i t i v i s t i c i n h i s thinking, but i t i s clear that his view of l i f e , and p a r t i c u l a r l y animal l i f e , describes a harmony which i n essence partakes of the larger moral system and which implies the w e l l -being of most. In t h i s view, preying on animal l i f e i s necessary for the preservation of species since t h i s preservation i s i t s e l f necessary for the higher a b i l i t y to a t t a i n a personal "kingdom of heaven." In eating an animal, man i s partaking of i t s l i f e , drawing sustenance from i t , and thus e s t a b l i s h i n g a l i v i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p . But t h i s i n i t s e l f i s but a baser form of meeting and mingling on the road to mutual creative v i t a l i t y : "The best way i s a pure r e l a t i o n s h i p , which includes the being on each side, and which allows the transfer to take place i n a l i v i n g flow, enhancing the l i f e i n both beings" (Phoenix I I , p.469). Lawrence's 'r e l a t i o n s h i p ' with Susan i s of t h i s l a t t e r order and the cow stands as an embodiment of Lawrence's i n t u i t i v e response to animal l i f e ; what i s revealed i s h i s powerfully f e l t and conceived sense of i n t e g r a t i o n between a l l animals who open themselves to the sentient world around them. This idea manifests i t s e l f i n much of Lawrence's treatment of birds and animals. But i t would be f o o l i s h to suggest that h i s success i n t h i s i s uniformly high. Take for example The White Peacock. Lawrence began t h i s novel as e a r l y as 1906 and i t i s by common agreement an immature work. 154 Lawrence excused himself for i t by w r i t i n g "I began i t at twenty. Let that be my apology."^"' Most c r i t i c s concur i n Lawrence's opinion, f i n d i n g 16 i t , to quote one noted c r i t i c , " p a i n f u l l y callow." Its technical f a u l t s are nowhere more apparent than i n i t s use of b i r d and animal in c i d e n t s , many of which seem d i r e c t l y derived from Hardy. The novel i s p a r t i c u l a r l y r i c h i n wild l i f e and as Anthony Beal says, i n i t "land runs wild and unprofitable; rabbits devour the crops and rats invade the barns ... animals and bi r d s are preyed upon, trapped and killed.""'"^ In what must have been a painstaking search, Robert E. Gajdusek records that i n t h i s novel "51 animals are brought i n ; 40 d i f f e r e n t birds skim, hover, f l y , and 18 wheel through t h i s novel; and many of these function as symbols." Many do indeed operate symbolically, but the effectiveness of the symbolic technique i s not always assured. For an example of Lawrence's mis-handling of animal symbolism and imagery we may look c l o s e l y at the r e l a t i o n s h i p which George Saxton has (or nearly has) with L e t t i e Beardsall. George's e s s e n t i a l "animality" and closeness to the l i f e of the countryside i s constantly stressed. On occasion, he d e l i b e r a t e l y contravenes p o l i t e rules of conduct by introducing discussions of calves being born, and i t i s t h i s aspect of h i s character that at once a t t r a c t s L e t t i e and yet repels her. George becomes for her a B u l l — " T a u r u s " — and she re f e r s to him as "a s t a l l e d ox - too intent on looking out for h i s own comfort and only h a l f a l i v e " . It i s t h i s c r i t i c i s m of him that c o n s t i -tutes the unsatisfactory development of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p , and i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y extended by Lawrence's descriptions of George's function as a 155 dairyman. One incident i s p a r t i c u l a r l y apposite. C y r i l Beardsall, the narrator, a r r i v e s at the Saxton farm to inform George that L e t t i e and 19 L e s l i e , the more i n t e l l e c t u a l s u i t o r , are a l l but engaged. On hearing t h i s news, George stops milking and "the cow looked round and s t i r r e d uneasily." George resumes, but "mechanically" and h i s rhythm i s destroyed. As he questions C y r i l , h i s disquiet grows and the cow r e f l e c t s and responds to h i s mood: "The cow s t i r r e d uneasily, s h i f t i n g her legs ... Then, quite 20 upset, she s h i f t e d again, and swung her t a i l i n h i s face." The upshot of t h i s episode i s that the cow produces very l i t t l e milk. C l e a r l y , we are reminded of the milking scenes from Hardy's Tess of the d'Ubervilles and s i m i l a r uses of the cow's p r e d i s p o s i t i o n are being made. George's i n a b i l i t y on t h i s day to draw much milk from the cows r e f l e c t s h i s depressed mood but also stands as a symbolic rendering of h i s f a i l u r e with L e t t i e . As with Gabriel Oak, George's worth i s suggested through h i s dealings with animals, and any f a i l u r e with them suggests romantic problems. We must remember that George i s c l o s e l y i d e n t i f i e d with the b u l l "Taurus",and when he i s so demonstrably a f a i l u r e with h i s cows we discern i n t h i s a connection to h i s inner a b i l i t y to r i s e to the demands that L e t t i e places on him. When he l a t e r returns to milking h i s cow, he remarks "You can't understand them", and the in d e f i n i t e n e s s of the pronoun makes the association between L e t t i e and a cow absolute. This kind of thing i s doubtless what Gajdusek has i n mind when he writes that The White Peacock " i s t i g h t l y organized, o v e r l a i d with an i n t r i c a t e multi-leveled symbolism, and co-ordinated by a complex stream of 21 a l l u s i o n s . " The value judgment inherent i n t h i s comment scarcely seems 156 warranted i n view of the clumsiness of the bull/cow analogy as i t applies to George and L e t t i e . The i n t e n t i o n i s obviously there and the technique of using animals to symbolize a complex human predicament i s c l e a r l y appropriate to the kind of r e l a t i o n s h i p that i s being described. But the int e n t i o n i s not achieved i n a convincing way. This f a i l u r e r e f l e c t s the generally unsatisfactory nature of Lawrence's depiction of character. The reader i s l e s s than convinced that the characters are well-rounded and there seems l i t t l e s o p h i s t i c a t i o n i n the handling of the love t r i a n g l e and the antitheses that l i e dormant i n i t . Other such b i r d and animal incidents are not hard to f i n d . There i s , for example, the incident i n the woods where L e t t i e and George come across a dead wood-pigeon: L e t t i e stooped over a wood-pigeon that lay on the ground on i t s breast, i t s wings half-spread. She took i t up - i t s eyes were bursten and bloody; she f e l t i t s breast, muffling the dimming i r i s on i t s throat. 'It's been f i g h t i n g , " he s a i d . 'What for - a mate?' she asked, looking at him ... 'I think a wood-pigeon must enjoy being fought for - and being won ... Don't you think l i f e i s very c r u e l , George - and love the c r u e l l e s t of a l l ? ' (p.209) L e t t i e then buries the b i r d and concludes, "He's done with." There i s l i t t l e need to explicate at length what t h i s scenario depicts. George i s obviously i d e n t i f i e d with the wood-pigeon, and i t s b u r i a l suggests the death of h i s chances with L e t t i e . In t h i s passage the reader neither f e e l s the r e a l i t y of the dead b i r d not the s t i n g of the implied symbolic s i g n i f i -cance, and the whole lacks any appeal to the reader's i n t e r e s t s . I have been describing some of the unsuccessful animal episodes that occur i n The White Peacock, but i t w i l l not do to suggest that everything i s of equally i n f e r i o r q u a l i t y or that Lawrence's f i c t i o n a l technique of using animals i s always unsatisfactory. One of the opening scenes of the novel involves the cat, Mrs. Nickie Ben, who i s caught c r u e l l y i n an animal trap. This episode i s convincing and the reader f e e l s the torture of the animal and r e g i s t e r s the s i g n i f i c a n t l y opposed approaches that d i f f e r e n t characters take towards t h i s s u f f e r i n g . To George i t i s the way of the world for animals to s u f f e r and die and he almost c h e e r f u l l y drowns the poor animal. To L e t t i e , whose character i s far more r e f i n e d , h i s actions are callous and she says that she despises him. But at the same time, L e t t i e i s attracted to the kind of man who acts so d e l i b e r a t e l y and doesn't allow sentiment to i n t e r f e r e with what must be done. The e f f e c t of t h i s episode i s i n t e r e s t i n g and establishes i n L e t t i e p a r t i c u l a r l y the seeds of a divided character whose a t t i t u d e towards George i s one of a t t r a c t i o n / r e p u l s i o n . Unfortunately, the strength of t h i s dichotomy i s not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y developed l a t e r on i n the novel. But at the beginning i t established and t h i s i s achieved through an example of animal s u f f e r i n g . The success of animal depiction i n The White Peacock i s not to be found i n small incidents, but rather i n the pervasive q u a l i t y of animal l i f e that i s everywhere f e l t . This i s e s p e c i a l l y caught within Lawrence's a b i l i t y to capture the f e l t presence of p h y s i c a l r e a l i t y . As Graham Hough writes, the centre of the novel's i n t e r e s t i s displaced "so that the circumference of the book includes, not only t h e i r characters and t h e i r 158 personal fates, but the whole l i f e of nature which surrounds and flows 22 through them." This, we remember, i s the q u a l i t y that Lawrence p a r t i c u -l a r l y admired i n Hardy and The White Peacock represents a deliberate i m i t a t i o n of the wholeness and i n t e g r a t i o n of a l l natural l i f e that Hardy had evoked i n a novel such as Far from the Madding Crowd. I t i s a Nature that i s both wonderful and c r u e l , and which a l l humans share. Within the general arena of r u r a l farming l i f e i n which man preys on animals for h i s own well-being there i s a wide v a r i e t y of human s e n s i b i l i t y . C y r i l for example i s rather squeamish about k i l l i n g rabbits i n the corn f i e l d s (the reader i s reminded of the scenes i n Tess where a f t e r the corn i s cut the rabbits and other animals are l e f t exposed to the bludgeonings of the humans). In t h i s he i s i d e n t i f i e d with L e t t i e and some of the other characters, usually female, who are of a s e n s i t i v e d i s p o s i t i o n . On the other side of the d i a l e c t i c we have people l i k e George and to a more extreme extent, Annable the f e r a l gamekeeper. This l a t t e r character i s e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g since he t y p i f i e s a Lawrence gamekeeper 'type' that we are to meet again. For our more l i m i t e d purposes here, he i s i n t e r e s t i n g because he i s represented as someone who has adopted an ' a n i m a l i s t i c ' l i f e - s t y l e and who has rejected the world of c i v i l i z a t i o n . Within him the d i a l e c t i c between animality and s p i r i t u a l i t y i s strongly evoked. In h i s at t i t u d e s he imagines himself at one with the other animals of the woods where he l i v e s ; for him, i f there i s a d i f f e r e n c e between animals and men i t i s to man's advantage to erase i t : When a man's more than nature he's a d e v i l . Be a good animal, says I, whether i t ' s man or woman. You, s i r , a good natural male animal; the lady there - a female un — t h a t ' s proper — a s 159 long as yer enjoy i t . (p.131) Amiable's hatred of c i v i l i z a t i o n i s founded on h i s experience with h i s former wife the Lady Chrystabel whose aversion to the animal parts of a sexual r e l a t i o n s h i p led to h i s overt animalism. Annable's case i s i n t e r -esting since he corresponds to what i s often thought to be Lawrence's deepest desire: that we should a l l revert to our animal state and give up the h o r r i b l e pretense of being anything more than wild animals. Gajdusek sees Amiable i n a r o l e something l i k e t h i s , describing him as a Laurentian 23 hero who epitomises "a deep sympathy and fusion with nature." Kenneth Inniss i s surely more correct when he argues that Annable i s on Nature's side not because of i t s p o s i t i v e values but because of i t s frank destruc-24 tiveness. C e r t a i n l y , Annable i s more preoccupied with hatred of c i v i l i z a t i o n than he i s with a "deep sympathy" for nature. It seems cl e a r that h i s p o s i t i o n simply w i l l not do. To regress to a conceived state of animalness i s not for Lawrence (here at least) the answer. Annable's death i s i n d i c a t i v e of h i s p o s i t i o n . His function as a gamekeeper i s to prevent the l o c a l people from trapping the rabbits on h i s master's property. As a r e s u l t of t h i s the farms are over-run and indeed the Saxtons are forced to move away. I t i s suggested that the farmer's i n a b i l i t y to trap the rabbits i s a r u r a l perversion; the l o c a l Lord prevents them from doing so not out of humanitarian pressures but because he considers them h i s property and at a l a t e r date wishes to trap them for economic p r o f i t . Annable i s i m p l i c i t l y a party to t h i s perverse p o s i t i o n and i n protecting the rab b i t s , with whom he i s d i r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d , he transgresses the proper r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i f f e r e n t species l i v i n g o ff the same land. 160 His p o s i t i o n i s f a l s e and i t i s revealed that i n h i s attempt to become at one with nature he perverts i t s course. Rather than e s t a b l i s h i n g a balanced opposition between himself and the animals, Annable attempts too l i t e r a l l y to become one of them and thus denies h i s own human nature. The sense of a l l - i n c l u s i v e Nature i s f e l t l e s s strongly i n Sons and Lovers than i t i s i n The White Peacock, and the animals that occur there do not constitute such a ground-swell of natural l i f e . Nonetheless, t h i s novel marks d e f i n i t e t e c h n i c a l advances i n Lawrence's handling of h i s animals, as indeed the whole novel marks a su b s t a n t i a l improvement over the author's f i r s t work. There are several incidents that are important to us but perhaps the most notable involves the great red s t a l l i o n that intrudes upon the action and helps to symbolize and c l a r i f y the mounting emotional tensions of the protagonists. The episode occurs i n Chapter IX where Paul Morel i s walking out with Miriam Levers and Clara Dawes; As they were going beside the brook, on the Willey Water side, looking through the brake at the edge of the wood, where pink campions glowed under a few sunbeams, they saw, beyond the t r e e -trunks and the t h i n hard bushes, a man leading a great bay horse through the g u l l i e s . The b i g red beast seemed to dance romantic-a l l y through that dimness of green hazel d r i f t , away there where the a i r was shadowy, as i f i t were i n the past, among the fading b l u e b e l l s that might have bloomed for Deidre or I s e u l t . 25 The horse i s d e l i b e r a t e l y interfused between the trees and bushes, and the shadowy e f f e c t , highlighted by the contrast of the red horse and the green leaves and bushes—both strong primary and pagan colours,—endows the beast with mythical and romantic overtones. The horse i s rendered l i t e r a l l y as a horse but Lawrence very c a r e f u l l y embroiders i t s appearance with c o l o u r f u l f i l igree patterns so as to convey something of i t s potent dynamism. Paul sees i n the horse q u a l i t i e s belonging to the world of Medieval romances but t h i s only brings out more f o r c e f u l l y Clara's feminist parry-and-thrust. She i m p l i c i t l y r e j e c t s any romantic connotations associated with the horse j u s t as she f o r c e f u l l y r e j e c t s Paul's playfulness; she i s profoundly d i s -enchanted with masculinity, either l i t e r a l l y i n Paul or symbolically i n the s t a l l i o n . As the horse approaches, however, her a t t i t u d e undergoes some subtle but profound changes: The great horse breathed heavily, s h i f t i n g round i t s red flanks, and looking s u s p i c i o u s l y with i t s wonderful b i g eyes upwards from under i t s lowered head and f a l l i n g mane. It danced sideways, shaking i t s white f e t l o c k s and looking frightened, as i t f e l t i t s e l f i n the brook. Clara, walking with a kind of sulky abandon, watched i t h a l f -fascinated, half-contemptuous. 'Your horse is_ a f i n e fellow,' said C l a r a . . . More lov i n g than most men, I should think.' Clara, fascinated by the great beast, went up to stroke h i s neck.. She wanted to look i n h i s eyes. She wanted him to look at her. 'It's a p i t y he can't t a l k , ' she sa i d . (pp. 287-288) Sh i f t s i n Clara's d i s p o s i t i o n are recorded and we are to see the influence of the horse as bearing the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The s i g n i f i c a n c e i s made clearer when l a t e r she and Paul are able to t a l k without the h o s t i l i t y that was e a r l i e r established. Much l a t e r they are to become lovers . The horse i s n a t u r a l i s t i c a l l y evoked but i t i s clear he bears a s i g n i f i c a n c e for the development of the pl o t that stretches beyond t h i s and assumes a symbolic function. The horse i s a transforming c a t a l y s t which operates on Clara to e f f e c t a r a d i c a l change i n personality that allows for r e a l communication between h e r s e l f and male characters. The red s t a l l i o n 162 embodies q u a l i t i e s of an e s s e n t i a l l y p h a l l i c nature; he i s a male f e r t i l i t y symbol, and the colours red and green r e i n f o r c e t h i s suggestion. The s t a l l i o n , t r a d i t i o n a l l y a symbol of male potency, represents a s p e c i a l kind of attractiveness and i t i s obtuse not to see that Lawrence i s describing Clara's v i t a l response to male sexuality. This notion i s not merely i n f e r r e d , i t i s d i r e c t l y broached within the ensuing conversation with Miss Limb, the s t a l l i o n ' s owner. Miss Limb i s obviously infatuated with her horse and i n her lon e l i n e s s he stands as something of a male subsitute. Paul i s quick to notice t h i s , but i t i s Clara who b l u r t s out "I suppose she wants a man." Her tone i s uncertain and there i s a half-suggestion that she i s d e r i s i v e l y o f f e r i n g the kind of comment which she f e e l s Paul (the male chauvinist) would make. Indeed, t h i s i s the cliche'd response that she might expect from Paul, as i t i s the response readers of Lawrence might expect him to make. But the obviousness of t h i s comment i s undercut since i t s expectedness does not take away i t s (for her) c r u e l and apposite i m p l i c a t i o n . The s i t u a t i o n may well be t r i t e but the germ or substance of i t i s not thereby reduced. This i s r e f l e c t e d i n the change that does come over Clara as she softens her former intransigence. A good part of her h o s t i l e antagonism i s thus shown to be a defence beneath which there i s deep unhappiness. The horse reveals t h i s , but there i s no sense i n which the animal i s not i n t e g r a l to the l i t e r a l and n a t u r a l i s t i c happenings, no sense that the horse i s an a r t i f i c i a l l y brought i n symbolic device. Rather, as Mark Spilka remarks, "the symbolic scenes are extremely l i t e r a l , and the symbols seem to function as i n t e g r a l 26 strands i n the web of emotional tensions." Once Clara has opened out to 163 Paul, i n symbolic gesture, he solemnizes t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p by s c a t t e r i n g flowers over her head. Paul's maleness i s now the t r a n s f i x i n g power. This episode with the horse contrasts with another animal incident i n v o l v i n g a dog. In t h i s incident i t i s Paul's r e l a t i o n s h i p with Miriam that i s c l a r i f i e d . I t occurs i n the chapter "Defeat of Miriam" and each of the two character's responses to the dog, symbolizes p a r t i c u l a r q u a l i t i e s of t h e i r p e rsonality and the d i s t i n c t i o n s i n t h e i r responses encapsulates the i n e v i t a b l e d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . The chapter opens porten-tously with a statement of Paul's f e e l i n g s : "Paul was d i s s a t i s f i e d with himself and with everything" (p.264). An e s s e n t i a l part of h i s unhappiness i s h i s concern over h i s a f f a i r with Miriam, and h i s concern manifests i t s e l f p etulantly: "Can you never l i k e things without clutching them as i f you wanted to p u l l the heart out of them? Why don't you have a b i t more r e s t r a i n t , or reserve, or something?" (pp.267-268). T y p i c a l l y , Miriam f e e l s more sorry f or him than she does for h e r s e l f . The very c a r e f u l l y wrought tension between them i s suddenly shattered by the appearance of B i l l , the b u l l - t e r r i e r : At that moment a big b u l l - t e r r i e r came rushing up, open-mouthed, pranced h i s two paws on the youth's shoulders, l i c k i n g h i s face. Paul drew back laughing. B i l l was a great r e l i e f to him. He pushed the dog aside, but i t came leaping back. 'Get out,' said the lad, 'or I ' l l dot thee one.' But the dog was not to be pushed away. So Paul had a l i t t l e b a t t l e with the creature, p i t c h i n g poor B i l l away from him, who, however, only floundered tumultuously back again, wild with joy. The two fought together, the man laughing grudgingly, the dog grinning a l l over. Miriam watched them. There was something pathetic about the man. He wanted so badly to love, to be tender. The rough way he bowled the dog over was r e a l l y l o v i n g . B i l l got up, panting with happiness, h i s brown eyes r o l l i n g i n hi s white face, and lumbered back again. He adored Paul. The lad frowned. ' B i l l , I've had enough o' thee,' he said. 164 But the dog only stood with two heavy paws, that quivered with love, upon h i s thigh, and f l i c k e r e d a red tongue at him. He drew back. (pp.269-70) There are several things to remark about t h i s passage. F i r s t , we must acknowledge the d e l i g h t f u l l y caught sense of an actual occurrence, what Dorothy Van Ghent would c a l l "the a u t h e n t i c i t y of a f a i t h f u l l y 27 observed concrete a c t u a l i t y . " The behaviour of the dog i s l i k e that of any dog i n the same s i t u a t i o n and the episode i s one that we can a l l r e c a l l . But the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the passage extends beyond t h i s . Miriam sees i n t h i s l i v e l y d i v i g a t i o n only something "pathetic" and she reads Paul's behaviour as an attempt to f i n d an out l e t f o r the love which he needs to g i v e — t o give to her, that i s . In f a c t , Paul i s merely taking refuge quite spontaneously i n an event of the moment. He describes himself as f e e l i n g only "normal" (for Miriam t h i s i s synonymous with "disagreeable") and the dog's i n t e r r u p t i o n allows him to forget the s t i l t e d nature of h i s conversation with Miriam. The appearance of the dog serves to sharpen the dilemma that both face, and t h e i r d i f f e r e n t responses to i t express t h i s . Instead of p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the action and enjoying the dog, Miriam uses i t as an occasion to analyze and p i t y the lover she fears to lose. Her response i s symptomatic of her general condition. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between these two animal episodes should be quite c l e a r , and we should view them as complementary. Each serves a s p e c i f i c purpose i n bringing to a head human c o n f l i c t s , and each brings out the qu a l i t y of Miriam and Clara that Paul responds to most f o r c e f u l l y . For Miriam, t h i s Is her i n a b i l i t y to act spontaneously and for Clara i t i s 165 her a b i l i t y to recognise the s t a l l i o n for what i t i s and to l e t her s p i r i t be moved by i t . Even the obvious difference between the two animals gives evidence of these values. But there i s a fundamental s i m i l a r i t y i n the way Lawrence uses an animal to act s t r u c t u r a l l y within the narrative flow to e f f e c t important thematic and psychological changes and to bring t h i s about through n a t u r a l i s t i c action concretized i n "unforced symbolic 28 dimension." For Lawrence, t h i s i s a d e l i b e r a t e l y contrived method and we see how Sons and Lovers constitutes a dramatic improvement over e a r l i e r instances of the same technique. In general terms, and by common c r i t i c a l assent, The Rainbow marks a further improvement i n Lawrence's creative powers. But s u r p r i s i n g l y , few examples of h i s Bestiary a r t occur here and when they do they are not of notioeably higher standard than i n Sons and Lovers. Nonetheless, there are a few incidents that are more than worthy of mention. To begin with, we should comment on the i n c l u s i v e sense of Nature that i s caught so magically within the f i r s t t h i r d of the novel. This deals with the r e l a t i o n -ship between Tom and Lydia Brangwen and the s e t t i n g i s t h e i r farm. A general sense of the intermingling of the human and the animal i s established with remarkable ease. Take for example, t h i s passage, not i n i t s e l f expressly focused on animals, but nonetheless one which would be incomplete without them: The s i l k y fringe of the shawl swayed s o f t l y , grains and hay t i c k l e d to the f l o o r ; he went along a d i m l y - l i t passage behind the mangers, where the horns of the cows pricked out of the obscurity. The c h i l d shrank, he balanced s t i f f l y , rested the pan on the manger wal l , and tipped out the food, h a l f to t h i s cow, h a l f to the next. There was a noise of chains running as the cows l i f t e d or dropped t h e i r heads sharply; then a 166 contented, soothing sound, a long snuffing as the beast ate i n s i l e n c e . The journey had to be performed several times. There was the rhythmic sound of the shovel i n the barn, then the man returned walking s t i f f l y between the two weights, the face of the c h i l d peering out from the shawl. Then the next time, as he stopped, she freed her arm and put i t round h i s neck, c l i n g i n g s o f t and warm, making i t a l l ea s i e r . The beast fed, he dropped the pan and sat down on a box, to arrange the c h i l d . 'Will the cows go to sleep now?' she sai d , catching her breath as she spoke. 'Yes.' 'Will they eat a l l t h e i r s t u f f up f i r s t ? ' 'Yes. Hark at them.' And the two sat s t i l l l i s t e n i n g to the s n i f f i n g and breathing of cows feeding i n the sheds communicating with t h i s small barn. The lantern shed a s o f t , steady l i g h t from one w a l l . A l l outside was s t i l l i n the r a i n . 29 Taken i n i t s e n t i r e context of Anna's slow adaptation to the new circumstances of l i f e on the farm, t h i s passage i s consummately achieved. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to think of a passage i n English f i c t i o n to compare with i t s creation of the p e c u l i a r atmospherics of l i g h t , sound, and emotional sensation. The cows are v i t a l to t h i s evocation and they represent for both father and stepdaughter objects of i n t r i n s i c i n t e r e s t d i s t i n c t from the fraught human opposition. As such they provide a hiatus i n the emotional drama, a f o c a l point of animal a c t i v i t y soothing to the nerves and providing ' ; a r i c h environment i n which the two people can become reconciled. The subtle touch of cowy presence i s deeply i n t e g r a l to the mood. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between Tom and Lydia i s admirably caught i n the sense of i n t e g r a l animal l i f e of which the passage j u s t quoted i s a superb example. The second t h i r d of the novel involves the young Anna and focuses 167 on her courtship and marriage to her cousin W i l l Brangwen. Within t h i s part of the novel the integrated l i f e of the farm i s absent. Nonetheless, animal imagery abounds and the h o s t i l i t i e s experienced by W i l l and Anna 31 are seen as v i c i o u s and predatory i n t h e i r nature. The couple are seen engaged i n a t e r r i b l e b a t t l e of will-power i n which Anna f i n a l l y emerges the v i c t o r . The chapter i n which t h i s occurs i s c a l l e d appropriately enough "Anna V i c t r i x " and towards the end there occurs an incident i n v o l v i n g two blue-caps, and t h i s incident serves as a symbolic coda to the f i e r c e struggle. The two blue-caps f i g h t and the reader c l e a r l y sees i n t h i s an analogue to the f i g h t j u s t witnessed between W i l l and Anna. As I have already mentioned, Anna has won and i n g i v i n g b i r t h to Ursula she finds a love-object which further excludes her husband: He [Will] hovered near to her, never quite able to forget the vague, haunting uncertainty, that seemed to challenge him and which he would not bear. A pang of dread, almost g u i l t , as of i n s u f f i c i e n c y , would go over him as he heard her t a l k i n g to the baby. (p.194) This establishes the worrying disquiet that W i l l now f e e l s ; he i s unable to f u l l y comprehend what he has l o s t , but seeing h i s wife and baby together, watching two b i r d s f i g h t , he i s enmeshed i n a keen sense of ennui. There follows the f i g h t between the b i r d s , narrated by a v i c t o r i o u s and happy Anna obl i v i o u s of her husband's sense of defeat: ...'look at the s i l l y blue-caps, my d a r l i n g , having a f i g h t i n the snow.' Look at them, my b i r d — b e a t i n g the snow about with t h e i r wings, and shaking t h e i r heads. Oh aren't they wicked things, wicked things.' Look at t h e i r yellow feathers on the snow there! T h e y ' l l miss them, won't they, when they're cold l a t e r on.' (p.194) In a gesture perhaps of maternal protection, Anna raps on the window pane and brings the f i g h t to an abrupt h a l t . S t i l l crooning, she assures her c h i l d what the birds w i l l soon forget a l l about t h e i r f i g h t , and i n a tone which suggests that she has forgotten a l l about her struggle with W i l l , she turns to her husband and unselfonsciously says: "They are r e a l l y f i g h t i n g , they were r e a l l y f i e r c e with each other" (p.195). The i n t e n s i t y of her own struggle with W i l l i s too close for the reader to ignore the blue-cap analogy. It i s s i g n i f i c a n t that W i l l sees i n the b i r d f i g h t , or rather Anna's obvious enjoyment i n watching i t , something symptomatic of h i s own discomfort. Anna h e r s e l f , i t i s implied, has reached her "Pisgah Mountain" but only at the expense of her most v i t a l accord with her husband This indeed i s the whole burden of the middle section of the novel, and we are to see t h e i r marriage as a f a i l u r e . From now on t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p i s to be highly sensual but i t i s to be devoid of further progress; both partners w i l l sink down into t h e i r own kinds of torpor. The f i g h t i n g blue-caps f i n a l l y are an i r o n i c analogue since whereas i t i s obviously seen as healthy for the two partners to f i g h t i t i s not healthy f o r the female to win so completely as to undermine the confidence of the man. With wild b i r d s , f i g h t i n g occurs to ensure the proper balance between partners and between r i v a l s , and not for pure v i c t o r y . By t h i s paradigm, W i l l and Anna show themselves to have f a i l e d i n the e f f o r t to e s t a b l i s h a r e l a t i o n -ship i n which each i s s u f f i c i e n t to himself and i n which enmity i s c r e a t i v e Instead, they w i l l be e t e r n a l l y opposed and w i l l become resolved only by steeping themselves i n sensuality, or work, or motherhood. The t h i r d part of The Rainbow concerns the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Ursula 169 and Anton Skrebensky, and here too animals are to play an important r o l e . The p a r t i c u l a r incident i n which we are interest e d occurs towards the very end of the novel when Ursula, exhausted by her dwindling r e l a t i o n s h i p with Anton, encounters.a group of horses who seem to persecute her. We should remind ourselves that the whole novel i s concerned with three attempts to e s t a b l i s h a marriage partnership which i s f u l f i l l i n g . The urge and the impulse i s always to remain free within a marriage and not to allow i t to thwart the two i d e n t i t i e s of the partners. Ursula i s engaged i n j u s t t h i s struggle and she f i g h t s against the almost over-whelming urge to marry Skrebensky, who i s a decidedly negative influence on her i n anything but sexual terms. I t i s a f t e r her f i n a l break from him that she walks into a f i e l d and meets the running horses. Their appearance i s sudden and t e r r i f y i n g : Suddenly she knew there was something els e . Some horses were looming i n the r a i n , not near yet. But they were going to be near ... she did not want to l i f t her face to them ... she knew the heaviness on her heart. I t was the weight of the horses. (p.487) These forces are f e l t as r e a l and the pounding of t h e i r hooves and surging mass of t h e i r form assures us that they are not the products of an h a l l u c i n a t i o n . But at the same time they embody c e r t a i n psychological fears and concerns that Ursula has and as such are imbued with e x t r a - n a t u r a l i s t i c force. The f e l t pressure of the horses then has a l i t e r a l and symbolic s i g n i f i c a n c e for Ursula; one of t h e i r disturbing t r a i t s i s an a b i l i t y to outflank her and counter her movements: She knew they had not gone, she knew they awaited her s t i l l . But she went on over the log bridge that t h e i r hoofs had churned and drummed, she went on, knowing things about them. She was aware 170 of t h e i r breasts gripped, clenched narrow i n a hold that never relaxed, she was aware of th e i r red n o s t r i l s flaming with long endurance, and of t h e i r haunches, so rounded, so massive, pressing, pressing, pressing to burst the grip upon t h e i r breasts, pressing forever t i l l they went mad, running against the walls of time, and never bursting free. Their great haunches were smoothed and darkened with r a i n . But the darkness and wetness of r a i n could not put out the hard, urgent, massive f i r e that was locked within these flanks, never, never. (p.488) The i n t e n s i t y and sexual suggestiveness of t h i s passage i s astonishing—and through i t Lawrence e f f e c t s h i s transference from l i t e r a l horse to what the horse means to Ursula. We saw with the red s t a l l i o n i n Sons and Lovers that the horse bears a d i r e c t l y sexual connotation and t h i s i s even more evident here. For Ursula, the pressing crush of these horses represents the sexual potency of Anton as i t threatens to engulf her. She i s at once profoundly a t t r a c t e d to i t and yet aware that by i t s e l f such potency can do nothing but run "mad". Anton, with h i s rather s t i f f and narrow concep-32 t i o n of what l i f e has to o f f e r , i s e s s e n t i a l l y doomed to a conventional marriage and t h i s , Lawrence strongly implies, i s the modern problem to be avoided. But for Ursula, the sensual a t t r a c t i o n i s t e r r i b l y strong and i t i s a struggle to overcome i t . The f a c t that she does, makes her d i s t i n c t from her mother who was s a t i s f i e d to have babies, and makes her Lawrence's " v i c t r i x " i n a very s p e c i a l sense. Only the presence of a group of running horses i s powerful enough to convey the lure and the struggle that Ursula experiences. Sensuality of a c e r t a i n l i m i t e d sort i s the danger here to Ursula and the horses' e f f o r t s to cut her o f f p a r a l l e l Anton's e f f o r t s to make her marry him. Once Ursula has managed to get out of the f i e l d the horses immediately lose t h e i r symbolic power and become merely n a t u r a l i s t i c horses stripped of t h e i r 171 meaning. The rhythmic flow of the prose has become exaggerated with the running flow of the horses and t h i s has elevated them into s i g n i f i c a n t symbols, but once the danger i s passed the prose tones down and we see them for what they are rather than for what they mean. The technique here i s s i m i l a r to that described i n "The Man Who Died" and i t i s approp-r i a t e i n i t s i n t e n t i o n and i t s e f f e c t . I t may be, as F. R. Leavis argues, that the end of the. novel, of which t h i s scene with the horses i s a part, su f f e r s from "a growing sense i n the writer of an absence of any conclusion 33 i n view." Nonetheless, the success of the horse symbolism, as a w e l l -conceived focusing point i n the breakdown of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Ursula and Anton, i s unmistakably achieved. We have seen that the t r i p a r t i t e organization of The Rainbow corresponds with three s i g n i f i c a n t episodes of animal usage. The method seems i n t e g r a l to Lawrence's development of themes. At c a r e f u l l y selected and appropriate times i n the na r r a t i v e development, an animal incident focuses the reader's at t e n t i o n towards some culminating and i m p l i c i t thematic concern. This manner of f i c t i o n a l representation i s considerably extended i n Women i n Love. With t h i s novel we encounter what i s perhaps the apex of Lawrence's achievement i n the presentation of highly charged examples of Bestiary a r t . The whole novel works out i t s major themes through two c o u p l e s — U r s u l a and B i r k i n , Gudrun and Gerald—and the stages of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s are c a r e f u l l y marked by s t r a t e g i c a l l y placed animal inc i d e n t s . As we s h a l l see, the former couple emerge at the end of the novel as the only v i a b l e survivors, even though there i s no suggestion that they have attained a complete i n t e g r a t i o n i n t h e i r marriage. (Like The Rainbow, t h i s novel takes as i t s major theme the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a man and a woman and the kinds of f r u i t i o n and imaginative l i f e that spring up within i t ) . On the other hand, Gerald and Gudrun enact a process of d i s i n t e g r a t i o n — f o r Gerald the process of h i s l i t e r a l death high i n the Alps. This couple acts as the counterpoint to the greater p o s s i b i l i t i e s inherent i n the former. Between these two couples, Lawrence works out the larger implications of what i s at stake when the v i t a l r e l a t i o n s between men and women go slack or are submerged within mechanical notions. The d i a l e c t i c at work i s between the organic and the mechanical as these e n t i t i e s apply to human r e l a t i o n s . Each side of the d i a l e c t i c i s attended by several animal incidents which c l a r i f y and illum i n a t e the c e n t r a l human meaning i m p l i c i t with the human action. The f i r s t of these episodes occurs i n "Coal Dust". We have already been introduced to the four main characters but up to th i s point l i t t l e has happened between them. Gudrun has of course seen Gerald and f e l t immediately attracted to him. Her a t t r a c t i o n , however, i s tinged with a c e r t a i n p e r v e r s i ty: "his gleaming beauty, maleness, l i k e a young good-humoured, smiling wolf, did not b l i n d her to the s i g n i f i c a n t , s i n i s t e r M34 s t i l l n e s s i n h i s bearing, the lu r k i n g danger of h i s unsubdued temper. Gerald i s pregnant with a c e r t a i n kind of a t t r a c t i v e danger and the image of the wolf marks him as predatory and unpredictable. He holds no such a t t r a c t i o n for Ursula, to whom he i s almost i n v i s i b l e . Her lack of in t e r e s t i n him, and even her secret animosity, i s expressed i n the o f f -hand way she treats him (pp.55-56). I t i s t h i s a t t i t u d e that causes some bad f e e l i n g between the s i s t e r s , and we are exposed to a n t i t h e t i c a l sentiments about Gerald's character. Gerald, "the wolf," has already been established as the young go-ahead manager of the coal mines and h i s d r i v i n g energy manifests i t s e l f i n h i s introducing machines that w i l l increase the e f f i c i e n c y of the mines. He i s a Captain of Industry and an apostle of progress, and i n attaching himself to these categories he has, i n B i rkin's eyes, t r a v e s t i e d h i s deepest nature. This i s expressed when he considers i t "bad form" for the bride and groom to race to the church door, and B i r k i n sees i n t h i s and r e l a t e d a t t i t u d e s , Gerald's renunciation of the " l i f e centre" and i s " a r t i f i c i a l l y held together by the s o c i a l mechanism" (p.64). What t h i s renunciation implies for Gerald as far as h i s sexual nature i s concerned, becomes evident i n the chapters "Creme de Menthe" and "Totem1 I t i s here that Gerald meets Minette, the pregnant mistress of the e f f e t e H a l l i d a y . Apart from i t s mindless gratuitousness, t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p apparently o f f e r s the reader a purely natural contest between the male hunter and the female v i c t i m . At l e a s t , t h i s i s how i t p r o v i s i o n a l l y appears: "She appealed to Gerald strongly. He f e l t an awful, enjoyable power over her, and i n s t i n c t i v e cherishing very near to c r u e l t y . For she was a v i c t i m . He f e l t that she was i n h i s power, and he was generous" (p.71). Gerald i s d e l i b e r a t e l y set up here as the i n s t i n c t u a l animal s t a l k i n g h i s prey and the sex act i t s e l f i s i d e n t i f i e d with a gentle k i l l . To him, "his was the only w i l l " and Minette was a mere "passive substance". The irony and impotence of Gerald's " w i l l " i s l a t e r exposed when i t becomes apparent that he i s a part of a sophisticated charade, a spectacle, i n which he was only the means, a s t u d - l i k e hiatus, i n the ongoing r e l a t i o n s h i p between Hal l i d a y and Minette . Gerald's w i l l had nowhere to go. Enough has been said to e s t a b l i s h the necessary context of Gerald's character. I t has been e s s e n t i a l to provide t h i s background since the animal episode that we are concerned with i s so t i g h t l y k n i t t e d into the very matter of the narrative as a whole that to present i t i n i s o l a t i o n would be to miss i t s importance. The scene takes place at a l e v e l -crossing where Gerald holds h i s arab-mare too close to the passing t r a i n ; Gudrun and Ursula look on. At f i r s t , Gerald i s merely "picturesque" as he s i t s a s t r i d e h i s red mare "pleased with the d e l i c a t e quivering of the creature between h i s knees" (p.122). But then as the t r a i n crashes by, he becomes an inhuman master i n s i s t e n t on e s t a b l i s h i n g h i s " w i l l " over that of the horse: The locomotive chuffed slowly between the banks, hidden. The mare did not l i k e i t . She began to wince away, as i f hurt by the unknown noise. But Gerald p u l l e d her back and held her head to the gate ... She r e c o i l e d l i k e a spring l e t go. But a g l i s t e n i n g , h a l f - s m i l i n g look came into Gerald's face. (p.122) Later, Gerald p l a u s i b l y claims that a horse that w i l l not do what i t s r i d e r demands i s useless. However, the i n t e n s i t y of t h i s passage and the horse's desire to escape, reveals that Gerald's p l a u s i b i l i t y i s p a r t l y a r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n for an inner streak of c r u e l t y : A sharpened look came on Gerald's face: he b i t himself down on the mare l i k e a keen edge b i t i n g home, and forced her round. She roared as she breathed, her n o s t r i l s were too wide, hot holes, her mouth was apart, her eyes fr e n z i e d . I t was a repulsive sight. But he held on her unrelaxed, with an almost mechanical relentlessness, keen as a sword pressing into her. Both man and horse were sweating with violence. Yet he seemed calm as a ray of cold sunshine. (pp.124-125) In t h i s v i c i o u s episode, so strangely a foreshadowing of the horses i n Picasso's Guernica, the fear and e l a s t i c contortions of the horse are caught marvelously well i n the prose. The horse's strenuous e f f o r t s to escape the close proximity of the t r a i n serve as a contrast to Gerald's mechanical coolness, and we see embodied the c o n f l i c t between organism and mechanism. The c r y s t a l l i z i n g e f f e c t of t h i s passage r e l i e s on the f e l t pressure of an inhuman " w i l l " c o l d l y overcoming a s e n s i t i v e organism. As one c r i t i c has put i t "the whole thing i s rendered with shattering 35 immediacy" as the desperate mare i s forced back into the t e r r i f y i n g clamour of brakes screeching and the over-close presence of the metal monster whose mechanical energy e a s i l y crushes anything i n i t s way. The horse, bleeding and desperate, i s described with great accuracy and represents for the reader the a n t i t h e s i s of Gerald whose personality haS become subsumed within the figure of the t r a i n i t s e l f . Through Gerald's imposition of h i s " w i l l " over the mare, he i s brough very sharply into focus. His use of the " w i l l " i s portrayed i n c r y s t a l l y c l e a r terms, and the reader r e g i s t e r s i t s destructiveness. Like Ursula, we f e e l repulsed and angered by Gerald and make the ass o c i a t i o n between " w i l l " , c r u e l t y , and the mechanical. The scene with the arab-mare then, has achieved i t s function of picking up the e a r l i e r threads that define Gerald and c r y s t a l l i z i n g them i n a dramatic and f o r c e f u l way. We r e c a l l h i s e a r l i e r attempt to impose h i s " w i l l " on Minette, and we noted there hi s subtle impotence. The s i t u a t i o n with the horse i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t i n that he a l l too c l e a r l y succeeds; but the success i s p a r t l y v i t i a t e d by Gudrun, whose response to the c r u e l action i s one of close sensual 176 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Fascinated by Gerald's c r u e l t y , she becomes implicated i n h i s corruption: Gudrun was i f numbed i n her mind by the sense of indomitable s o f t weight of the man, bearing down i n t o the l i v i n g body of the horse: the strong indomitable thighs of the blond man clenching the p a l p i t a t i n g body of the mare into pure con t r o l ; a sort of soft white magnetic domination from the l o i n s and thighs and calves, enclosing and encompassing the mare heavily i n t o unutterable subordination, soft-blood-subordination, t e r r i b l e . (p.126) The desire to be dominated i s apparently evinced i n Gudrun's response, but we should remember that t h i s i s what we also thought about Minette. It i s true that both females want of Gerald the sexual t h r i l l he can give them, but th i s i n i t s e l f i s not enough. Gudrun, rather than i d e n t i f y i n g with the horse that i s being subjugated, i d e n t i f i e s with the man who i s doing the dominating, and she too i s absorbed by the inhuman process of imposing the " w i l l " . As l a t e r events reveal, p a r t i c u l a r l y the Highland c a t t l e and Rabbit in c i d e n t s , Gudrun i s taken into Gerald's c r u e l t y not to submit to him but to f i g h t and eventually destroy him. Minette goes to Halliday and f i n a l l y Gudrun goes to Loerke. The p o s s i b i l i t y of a balanced partnership i s disallowed by Gerald and Gudrun's mutual desire to dominate. Psychologically, as E l i s e o Vivas suggests, "the apparently strong i n d u s t r i a l magnate turns out to be the weaker ... and the woman 36 knows i t from the beginning." Ursula's response to the arab-mare incident i s equally revealing. To her, the performance i s shameful and she upbraids Gerald i n an unequivocally emotional way. Like the arab-mare, with whom she i m p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f i e s , Ursula gives immediate vent to her f e e l i n g s : 177 'Why couldn't he take the horse away, t i l l the trucks had gone by? He's a f o o l and a b u l l y . Does he think i t ' s manly, to torture a horse? It's a l i v i n g thing, why should he b u l l y i t and torture i t ? ' (p.125) This response, angry and honest, characterises Ursula and i t i s i n a s i m i l a r s p i r i t of right-hearted opposition that she l a t e r accepts the challenge B i r k i n throws down to her. Here, recognising blatant c r u e l t y for what i t i s Ursula r a i s e s her voice. Similar i n some ways to Clara Dawes' quick stridency of manner, Ursula enlivens a notion of "pure opposition" to that which she i s against and her openness distinguishes her r a d i c a l l y from the kind of coercive but disingenuous i d e n t i f i c a t i o n for which Gudrun seems to opt. Gudrun, as seen by her reaction to the arab-mare, f e e l s the s p e l l of awful a t t r a c t i o n rather than opposition, a sinking into the deadly game that w i l l l a t e r be enacted. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the arab-mare episode i s maintained and extended i n the chapter "Carpeting". Here, however, the perspective has s h i f t e d and the narrative i s more interested i n B i r k i n and Ursula. The ensuing discussion concerns Gerald's c r u e l t y to h i s horse but underlying t h i s i s the general question of the meaning of domination and submission i n a man-woman r e l a t i o n s h i p . Gerald's case we have already examined—"I consider that mare i s there for my use" (p.154). Hermione supports t h i s view, though i n a more l a c o n i c a l l y l i b e r a l way: "I do r e a l l y think we must have the courage to use the lower animal l i f e for our needs" (p.155). She l a t e r amplifies her views on the " w i l l " and maintains that she cured her-s e l f of her ailments by the exercise of will-power. The irony i n t h i s for B i r k i n i s that i n by so doing Hermione has merely replaced one sickness 178 by another, the l a t t e r worse by far than the former. At f i r s t glance, B i r k i n also seems to side with Gerald when he exclaims that "Nothing i s so detestable as the maudlin a t t r i b u t i n g of human feeli n g s and conscious-ness to animals" (p.155). He speaks t h i s sharply i n response to what Hermione has said and i t i s clear that he sees her q u a l i t y of being "animal i n the head" as a manifestation of t h i s "maudlin" habit. Ursula remains adamant i n her p o s i t i o n and asserts that the arab-mare "has as much r i g h t to her own being, as you have to yours" (p.154). There are several things going on i n t h i s discussion, a l l of which have ramifications for the c e n t r a l protagonists and a l l of which ultimately r e l y for t h e i r i n s p i r a t i o n on the arab-mare inci d e n t . F i r s t , as I have already indicated, a f i g u r a t i v e t r a n s i t i o n from horse to woman i s implied throughout. On the most elementary l e v e l , Gerald's view that the horse must be submissive i s the most p r a c t i c a l i f we take the u t i l i t a r i a n concept of "use" as true. The same i s also true of a woman's r o l e — t h e r e can only be one master of a household.if that house i s to be run most e f f i c i e n t l y , and therefore the woman must know her place. B i r k i n ' s p o s i t i o n modifies t h i s a t t i t u d e by introducing h i s concept of the "two w i l l s " inherent i n horse and woman a l i k e , one which needs to be submissive and one which i s i n v i o l a t e and pure unto i t s e l f : "And woman i s the same as horses: two w i l l s act i n opposition i n s i d e her. With one w i l l , she wants to subject h e r s e l f u t t e r l y . With the other she wants to b o l t , and p i t c h her r i d e r to p e r d i t i o n " (p.157). Ursula r i s e s to the challenge and claims that she i s a "b o l t e r " and w i l l not subject h e r s e l f to anyone or thing: " I t was 179 a f i g h t to the death between them—or to new l i f e : though i n what the c o n f l i c t l a y , no one could say" (p.159). The enmity i s thus established and finds i t s most f a s c i n a t i n g discussion i n the chapter "Mino", where the l i t e r a l dispute between two cats provides an ambiguous analogue of the predicament Ursula and B i r k i n face. The scene acts as an important measure by which the q u a l i t y and d i f f i c u l t y of the problem of 'love' may be gauged. The context i s already pretty f a i r l y stated but i t i s as well to provide a b r i e f resume of the action immediately p r i o r to the entrance of the male and female cats. B i r k i n has i n v i t e d Ursula to tea and on her a r r i v a l begins to harangue her as to what he wants i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p . He wants to meet her "where there i s no speech and no terms of agreement" (p. 163). His strenuous attempts to a r t i c u l a t e h i s deepest thoughts and needs s t r i k e Ursula (and the reader) as rather abstract and h i s ideas of love become a preacher's dogma f l y i n g i n the face of the palpably r e a l Ursula. She r e j e c t s and s a t i r i s e s h i s a t t i t u d e s and i n t e n s i t i e s and there i s established between them a creative antagonism i n which neither of t h e i r w i l l s dominate. Enter the cats: A young grey cat that had been sleeping on the sofa jumped down and stretched, r i s i n g on i t s long legs, and arching i t s s l i m back. Then i t sat considering for a moment, erect and k i n g l y . And then, l i k e a dart, i t had shot out of the room, through the open window-doors and into the garden. 'What's he a f t e r ? ' s a i d B i r k i n , r i s i n g . The young cat t r o t t e d l o r d l y down the path, waving h i s t a i l . He was an ordinary tabby with white paws, a slender young gentleman. A crouching, f l u f f y , brownish-grey cat was s t e a l i n g up the side of the fence. The Mino walked s t a t e l i l y up to her with manly nonchalance. She crouched before him and pressed h e r s e l f on the ground i n humility, a f l u f f y , s o f t outcast, looking up at him with wild eyes that were green and l o v e l y as 180 great jewels. He looked casually down on her. So she crept a few inches further, proceeding on her way to the back door, crouching i n a wonderful, s o f t , s e l f - o b l i t e r a t i n g manner, and moving l i k e a shadow. He, going s t a t e l i l y on h i s sl i m legs, walked a f t e r her, then suddenly, for pure excess, he gave her a s l i g h t cuff with h i s paw on the side of her face. She ran o f f a few steps, l i k e a blown l e a f along the ground, then crouched unobtrusively, i n submissive, wild patience. The Mino pretended to take no notice of her. He blinked h i s eyes superbly at the landscape. In a minute she drew h e r s e l f together and moved s o f t l y , a fleecy brown-grey shadow, a few paces forward. She began to quicken her pace, i n a moment she would be gone l i k e a dream, when the young grey l o r d sprang before her, and gave her a l i g h t hand-some c u f f . She subsided at once, submissively. 'She i s a wild cat,' said B i r k i n . 'She has come i n from the woods. ' The eyes of the stray cat f l a r e d round for a moment, l i k e great green f i r e s s t a r i n g at B i r k i n . Then she had rushed i n a s o f t swift rush, half-way down the garden. Then she paused to look round. The Mino turned h i s face i n pure s u p e r i o r i t y to his master, and slowly closed h i s eyes, standing i n statuesque young pe r f e c t i o n . The wild cat's round, green, wondering eyes were s t a r i n g a l l the while l i k e uncanny f i r e s . Then again, l i k e a shadow, she s l i d towards the kitchen. In a l o v e l y springing leap, l i k e a wind, the Mino was upon her, and had boxed her twice, very d e f i n i t e l y , with a white, d e l i c a t e f i s t . She sank and s l i d back unquestioning. He walked a f t e r her, and cuffed her once or twice, l e i s u r e l y , with sudden l i t t l e blows of h i s magic white paws. (pp.165-166) Once again, we must pause to comment on the a u t h e n t i c i t y of the scene as i t i s caught i n Lawrence's d e s c r i p t i v e prose. The reader f e e l s (and sees with h i s inner imaginative eye) that these are cats which e x i s t and which behave i n t h i s manner. Their "ontological i n t e g r i t y " i s very f i r m l y established and the reader i s frankly delighted by t h i s d isplay of animal l i f e , f a i t h f u l l y recorded and amusingly presented. This q u a l i t y of na r r a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n goes further than merely being an i n c i d e n t a l episode designed to appeal to animal f a n c i e r s . For i n e s t a b l i s h i n g accurately the cats' l i t e r a l behaviour and manner, Lawrence i s cr e a t i n g an analogue 181 to Ursula and B i r k i n ' s s i t u a t i o n which, because of i t s unique separateness, cannot be reduced to f i t exactly the human beings. The analogy i s as i n t e r e s t i n g for the d i s t i n c t i o n s that i t forces the reader to see between cats and human beings as i t i s for the s i m i l a r i t i e s . The incident n a t u r a l l y gives r i s e to an extension of the couple's p r i o r confrontation. To B i r k i n Mino i s behaving i n accordance with i t s nature and i s "on intimate terms" with the stray. To Ursula, he i s merely a b u l l y " l i k e a l l males", unjustly oppressing a l l females i n a show of " w i l l " . She equates i t with Gerald's use of the arab-mare, though here of course she i s being too extreme. Whether we l i k e i t or not, Mino and the stray are acting out a process i n which role s are established and followed by process of i n s t i n c t : there i s no self-conscious ego involved. Between Gerald and the mare, however, there i s discrepancy i n species and no harmonious balance can be achieved. Mino's " b u l l y i n g " and the stray's "submission" serve the protection of the species as a whole. An episode more useful by way of comparison than the arab-mare, i s Gerald's l i a s i o n with Minette whose very name i s obviously a feminine version of Mino. We saw that Gerald saw himself as a self-conscious Mino f i g u r e , engaged i n asserting himself over h i s Minette who was h i s " f l u f f y " stray. The shallowness of h i s self-conscious assumption of "animal" i n s t i n c t s i s revealed i n the d u p l i c i t y of the victim's motives. Mino the cat i s not conscious i n t h i s way and i s emphatically not g u i l t y of the same crime against himself and h i s female partners. B i r k i n , of course, i s quick to pick up on t h i s kind of argument. With the i n s t i n c t to propagate i n mind, he argues that Mino i s not acting 182 out of c h u r l i s h chauvinism, but instead "desires to bring t h i s female cat into a pure stable equilibrium, a transcendent and abiding rapport with the single male" (p.167). B i r k i n provides a gloss on Natural History which, though probably more accurate than Ursula's, has the unfortunate s o p h i s t i c tendency to support h i s own point of view. By t h i s time he i s only h a l f - s e r i o u s , but the argument remains. His superconscious formula-tions s t r i k e Ursula as decidedly flawed and she sees such arguing as a means to coerce her into being h i s "slave". She misunderstands h i s argument, but i t should be said that B i r k i n ' s point of view i s not without i t s weaknesses, chief amongst them being h i s intense and at time ludicrous manner of 'preaching' h i s gospel. Ursula l e t s him know what'she thinks of t h i s , and thus provides the kind of opposition that B i r k i n needs. In what ways does t h i s incident advance the p l o t and themes of the novel, and what does i t t e l l us about B i r k i n and Ursula? F i r s t of a l l , l i k e the dog B i l l i n Sons and Lovers i t causes a natural hiatus i n the a c t i v i t i e s of the humans which freshens, enlivens, and r e l i e v e s the human s i t u a t i o n . The animal drama l i t e r a l l y takes them out of themselves for a few moments and provides them with an analogous s i t u a t i o n d i s t i n c t enough from th e i r own but not too far away from i t . The episode also provides a narrow focus on the s p e c i f i c s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the sexes, as i t i s seen i n the natural world of animals. Argue as the humans might, t h e i r words and thoughts w i l l not change the behaviour of the cats. S t r i c t l y speaking, i t i s immaterial how B i r k i n or Ursula construe the animals' behaviour since these notions are merely projections of t h e i r own most cherished ideas and a f f e c t r e a l i t y not at a l l . But what the disputation 183 r e a l l y c r y s t a l l i z e s i s the concept of opposition i t s e l f which the couple engages i n . It i s through the v i t a l opposition of ideas that each main-tains h i s separate i d e n t i t y so that at the r i g h t moment they may come together and i n sharing love bring f o r t h a greater q u a l i t y of harmony. The issues that constitute the ' s t u f f of t h i s opposition are as tangential to the developing emotional bond between B i r k i n and Ursula as they are to the bond between the cats. With the cats, t h i s i s i n s t i n c t , but with the humans i t i s a necessary opposition founded on a powerful underplay of a t t r a c t i o n combined with the development of mental consciousness. As i f to h i g h l i g h t t h i s s i m i l a r i t y , when the landlady in t e r r u p t s the lovers, "they both looked at her very much as the cats had looked at them, a l i t t l e while before" (p.168) At t h i s point they are deeply engaged i n t h e i r by-now p l a y f u l h o s t i l i t y , Ursula accusing B i r k i n of having "dished himself" by admitting that he wanted a female " s a t e l l i t e " and B i r k i n laughingly denying i t . What i s important i s not who i s r i g h t , but the tone i n which the interchange takes place to allow for a more powerful and perhaps sub-vocal a t t r a c t i o n . Dialogue i n t h i s sense becomes an i n v i s i b l e s o l u t i o n i n which other more act i v e agents may foment and j o i n . This i s suggested when at the end of the chapter "she put her arms round h i s neck" and they accept, for a while, the s e l f - c o n s c i o u s l y sentimental r o l e of t r a d i t i o n a l lovers. In the very next chapter there occurs yet another incident i n which animals play a v i t a l l y important r o l e . Here, however, t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e applies to Gerald and Gudrun and reinforces the e a r l i e r evidence of the unhealthiness of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p . While the two couples are on an 184 i s l a n d , Gudrun i s d i r e c t l y compared with Ursula and i t i s recorded that Gudrun f e l t "that she was outside of l i f e , an onlooker" (p.185), and that t h i s caused her to suffer a "sense of her own negation". Her e f f o r t to overcome t h i s negation i s then eurhjthmically evoked as she dances before some Highland c a t t l e attempting to release h e r s e l f from the " i n v i s i b l e chain" which imprisons her: Gudrun, with arms outspread and her face u p l i f t e d , went i n a strange p a l p i t a t i n g dance towards the c a t t l e , l i f t i n g her body towards them as i f i n a s p e l l , her feet pulsing as i f i n some l i t t l e frenzy of unconscious sensation, her arms, her wris t s , her hands stretching and heaving and f a l l i n g and reaching and reaching and f a l l i n g , her breasts l i f t e d and shaken towards the c a t t l e , her throat exposed as i n some voluptuous ecstasy towards them, whilst she d r i f t e d imperceptibly nearer, an uncanny white f i g u r e , towards them, c a r r i e d away i n i t s own rapt trance, ebbing i n strange f l u c t u a t i o n s upon the c a t t l e , that waited, and ducked t h e i r heads a l i t t l e i n sudden contraction from her, watching a l l the time as i f hypnotized, t h e i r bare horns branching i n the dear l i g h t , as the white f i g u r e on the woman ebbed upon them, hypnotizing convulsion of the dance. (p.187) Our focus of i n t e r e s t here i s not on the c a t t l e as animals but rather as the force they represent to Gudrun which must be overcome by the imposition of her hypnotic w i l l . Through t h i s a ction she hopes to e s t a b l i s h some kind of contact, to assert h e r s e l f against her own negation and to break free from the u n r e a l i t y which seems to overcome her. The b u l l i s t r a d i t i o n -a l l y a symbol of male potency and i t i s clear that i n overcoming these c a t t l e Gudrun imagines that she i s overcoming a v i t a l male p r i n c i p l e . Like Anna i n The Rainbow she i s engaged i n an attempt to win the b a t t l e of w i l l s and to defeat her partner. For Gudrun, t h i s partner i s Gerald and when he ar r i v e s to f r i g h t e n the c a t t l e away she s t r i k e s him across the face i n a gesture of mad and demonic power. To h i s observation that i t i s she who has 185 struck the f i r s t blow, she r e t o r t s that she w i l l also s t r i k e the l a s t . The context f o r the kind of opposition i n which Gudrun and Gerald are engaged i s provided by B i r k i n i n a discussion with Ursula: ... When the stream of synthetic creation lapses, we f i n d our-selves part of the inverse process, the blood of destructive creation. Aphrodite i s born i n the f i r s t spasm of univer s a l d i s s o l u t i o n — then the snakes and swans and lotus — marsh flowers — and Gudrun and Gerald — born i n the process of destructive creation. (p.193) This, then, as we l a t e r discover, i s to be the true nature of the r e l a t i o n -ship between Gudrun and G e r a l d — a process of destruction i n which the super-imposition of the " w i l l " breeds d i s s o l u t i o n and corruption i n the v i t a l flow between a man and woman. This theme i s restated i n the j u s t l y famous "Rabbit" chapter. Many commentators have discussed i n great d e t a i l t h i s episode and found concrete 37 symbolic embodiment of the destruction already alluded to. This whole passage c l e a r l y stands as the p a r a l l e l to the "Mino" chapter and each characterises the kind of "marriage" that the two couples w i l l make. Whereas the "Mino" chapter i s shrouded i n a warm envelope of antagonistic a f f e c t i o n , "Rabbit" i s shot through with viciousness and unholy communion. The scene i s presided over by Winifred, Gerald's l i t t l e s i s t e r , and i t i s against her sentimental smother-love of animals that Gudrun and Gerald's response should be set. Gudrun and Winifred intend to catch Bismark to draw him, but the animal i s wild and w i l l not be caught. He i s indeed "un mystere", strangely associated with the mystery of desire that Gudrun and Gerald share. The animal i s too strong to be caught by Gudrun and i t tears her f l e s h ; Gerald a r r i v e s and a f t e r s u f f e r i n g the v i c i o u s slashings-out of the 186 rabbit brings h i s hand down hard on i t s neck and subdues i t . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , the animal i s perceived and described as animal, 38 with the d i s t i n c t i v e mysteriousness of a r a b b i t . The following passage occurs a f t e r Bismark has f i n a l l y been released and the animal becomes once again an animal, d i s t i n c t from i t s meaning to the humans: And suddenly the rabbit, which had been crouching as i f i t were a flower, so s t i l l and s o f t , suddenly burst into l i f e . Round and round the court i t went, as i f shot from a gun, round and round l i k e a f u r r y meteorite, i n a tense hard c i r c l e that seemed to bind t h e i r brains. They a l l stood i n amazement, smiling uncannily, as i f the rabbit were obeying some unknown incantation ... . And then quite suddenly i t s e t t l e d down, hobbled among the grass, and sat considering i t s nose twitching l i k e a b i t of f l u f f i n the wind. Aft e r having considered for a few minutes, a soft hunch with a black, open eye, which perhaps was looking at them, perhaps was not, i t hobbled calmly forward and began^to nibble the grass with that mean motion of a rabbit's quick eating. (p.273) Afte r the awful preceding incident i n which the rabbit had scratched "a deep red score down the s i l k e n white f l e s h " of Gudrun's arm, and where the reader learns that Gudrun and Gerald were "implicated with each other i n abhorrent mysteries", t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of the rab b i t takes on a p e c u l i a r l y s t i l l q u a l i t y . The rabbit's v i c i o u s slashing has gashed Gudrun's arm and i t i s the sight of the blood that seems to solemnize a union i n the "obscene beyond" of the "abhorrent mysteries" i m p l i c i t within the " r i v e r of d i s s o l u -t i o n " . What phrases l i k e these point to i s impossible to say e x p l i c i t l y , but i t i s clear that the whole complex of s i g n i f i c a n c e which centres on the r a b b i t i s a symbolic rendering of t h i s meaning. And i t i s "a mystery", "un mystere", "ein wunder". E l i s e o Vivas i s surely r i g h t when he argues 39 that t h i s symbol of the rabbit i s a " c o n s t i t u t i v e symbol" which suggests meaning impossible to describe without reduction. And the deep sense of 187 what t h i s blood-contact i s between Gerald and Gudrun i s marvelously effected by Lawrence's use of an animal that by i t s very nature i s a deep we l l of frequently savage, frequently mild, incomprehensibility. Once again, the appropriate symbol i s taken from simple observation of n a t u r a l l i f e . In the preceding discussion of Women i n Love, i t has been seen how c e r t a i n animal episodes are l o g i s • t i c a l l y placed so as to advance and heighten the author's themes and i n t e n s i t i e s . Animals would n a t u r a l l y occur to Lawrence because of t h e i r i n e v i t a b l y natural and l i v e l y behaviour. Thus, Lawrence's symbolism may always be kept within the bounds of the natural and the empirical. Both the symbolist and the n a t u r a l i s t i c tech-niques are used and the balance between these i s maintained within the rhythmic flow of the n a r r a t i v e . Paradoxical though i t might seem, Lawrence achieves the greatest strength of symbolic power when he i s being most su c c e s s f u l l y n a t u r a l i s t i c . In turning our attention towards two of Lawrence's novellas, "The Fox" and "St. Mawr", we encounter two works that are most obviously Bestiary - l i k e i n t h e i r o v e r a l l conception. Indeed, for t h i s reason there i s perhaps le s s to say of them that i s not obvious to any reader. In the novels animal episodes form an on-going r e l a t i o n s h i p with the larger n a r r a t i v e , but i n these more condensed works the animals constitute the governing symbolic device. Nonetheless, we may b r i e f l y look at these works to see i f the way an animal i s used deviates from the patterns already described. "The Fox", written o r i g i n a l l y i n 1918 but expanded i n 1921, uses the 188 appearance of the l i t e r a l fox to develop the c o n f l i c t s that engage two women and a man. The c e n t r a l theme i s expressed i n the problems encountered by March and Banford i n an attempt to run a farm and lead s a t i s f y i n g l i v e s . In t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p , March acts as the man, functioning as the mainstay of the work, while Banford i s the more submissive b i r d - l i k e feminine partner. There i s no suggestion that the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s Lesbian, but i t i s indicated that the i n a b i l i t y to manage things i s caused by the inherent i n s t a b i l i t y of the all-female arrangement. The h e i f e r s are troublesome, the chickens w i l l not behave, but these p r a c t i c a l problems are seen as outward manifes-tations of an e s s e n t i a l l y psychological and inner dichotomy. The s t y l e of l i f e that has been opted for i s f r u i t l e s s , and March f e e l s t h i s p a r t i c u l a r l y strongly. The bane of the womens1 l i f e on the farm i s the marauding fox who cont i n u a l l y steals t h e i r chickens. The fox acts, however, i n a larger sense than t h i s ; h i s i n t r u s i o n into the female environment as a male causes con-sternation of an alarming kind. I t i s March who encounters him: She lowered her eyes, and suddenly saw the fox. He was looking up at her. Her chin was pressed down, and h i s eyes were looking up. They met her eyes. And he knew her. She was s p e l l b o u n d — she knew he knew her. So.; he looked into her eyes, and her soul f a i l e d her. He knew her, he was not daunted. She struggled, confusedly, she came to h e r s e l f , and saw him making o f f , with slow leaps over some f a l l e n boughs, slow, impudent jumps. Then he glanced over h i s shoulder, and ran smoothly away. She saw h i s brush held smooth l i k e a feather, she saw his white buttocks twinkle. And he was gone, s o f t l y , s o f t as the wind..., 40 Here as elsewhere, Lawrence i s s a t i s f i e d to evoke the q u a l i t y of foxness with a few impressionistic strokes rather than r e l y i n g on more lengthy descriptions. Implied within such d e t a i l as there i s about the fox's p h y s i c a l appearance i s the woman's response to him. She i s "possessed" almost instantaneously, by h i s quick, s e l f - c o n f i d e n t marauding manner. The fox's subtle potency i s established p r i n c i p a l l y by the calm assurance of h i s eye, "half i n v i t i n g , h a l f contemptuous", and by the p i e r c i n g "smoothness" of h i s f u r . What t h i s animal represents to March needs l i t t l e e x p l i c a t i o n . He i s a male creature, f u l l of strange potent v i t a l i t y , and f u l f i l l i n g a void that e x i s t s . i n her l i f e with Banford. At i t s most extreme but obvious im p l i c a t i o n , the fox suggests i t s e l f as a sexual force. John B. Vickery has argued persuasively that the fox 41 i s to be i d e n t i f i e d with "Dionysus as the c o r n - s p i r i t , " i n that he represents a powerful p r i m i t i v e f e r t i l i t y d e ity. Indeed, the t a l e becomes expressly totemic with the appearance of Henry G r e n f e l l , the human embodi-ment of what the fox represents: ...to March he was the fox. Whether i t was the thrusting forward of h i s head, or the g l i s t e n of f i n e whitish hairs on the ruddy cheek-bones, or the b r i g h t , keen eyes, that can never be sa i d : but the boy was to be the fox, and she could not see him otherwise (p.93) The p h y s i c a l s i m i l a r i t i e s between boy and fox are d i r e c t l y pointed to and t h i s serves to further the t r a n s i t i o n that occurs i n March's mind between man and animal. The dimly perceived sexual force of the animal becomes embodied i n the demands of the man. I m a g i s t i c a l l y , Henry i s constantly re f e r r e d to as the hunter, l i k e the fox, and with some amount of cunning (perhaps only p a r t l y conscious to himself) he emulates the fox's s t a l k i n g of the chicken-house by s t a l k i n g March, and then l a t e r , i n another context, Banford. 190 So f a r , I have suggested the obvious totemic i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between Henry and the fox, h i s emblem, and pointed to the c r e a t i v e l y d i s r u p t i v e function that both these forces serve. For Henry t h i s w i l l l a t e r take the form of "accidentally-on-purpose" k i l l i n g Banford and marrying March. But the fox has another and perhaps broader symbolic function. He represents the dying s p i r i t of potent England: "Since the war the fox was a demon" (p.87), and was to be expunged and r i d from the land. When Henry f i n a l l y comes to shoot the fox he records that "England was l i t t l e and t i g h t " and that i n t h i s c o n s t r i c t e d environment "the fox didn't have a chance" (p.121). This provides Henry with the r a t i o n a l e to k i l l the animal: better to die t h i s way than i n a trap or at the hands of people who had no sympathy for him. In so f a r as Henry i s d i r e c t l y associated with the fox we must see t h i s added symbolism as applying equally to him. If the fox "doesn't have a chance" i n England then neither does Henry. What i s there about Henry's f o x - l i k e character that makes l i f e f o r him i n England impossible? The answer to t h i s question may be found i n h i s embodiment of e s s e n t i a l l y Dionysian tendencies. Henry i s part-demon, part animal, part pan, and a l l the forces of modern European l i f e are against him. The story takes place during the Great War and we c l e a r l y f e e l i t s threatening presence as the backdrop which leads Henry to h i s gloomy prognostications. F. R. Leavis claims that "The Fox" i s a r a d i c a l l y successful work of a r t and that i t i s "a study of human mating; of the a t t r a c t i o n between a man and a woman that expresses the profound needs of each and has i t s meaning 42 i n a permanent union." I hold t h i s argument to be v a l i d , and within i t s 191 contexts we may see the informing appropriateness of Henry being invested with the most potent forces inherent i n a male animal engaged i n i t s r i g h t f u l business. By this l o g i c , even the death of Banford becomes excusable i f i t leads to the kind of creative union i n marriage that Leavis 43 describes. This i s not to say, as some c r i t i c s imply, that Lawrence i s advocating murder i n the cause of marriage, but i s to symbolically describe the profound importance that Lawrence attaches to the male-female union as the cornerstone of i n d i v i d u a l and s o c i a l s t a b i l i t y . And i f i t comes to the r e a l crunch, Lawrence implies, the proper male w i l l make a s a c r i f i c e of the object that prevents h i s most intense need. Banford represents t h i s as a woman profoundly a n t i t h e t i c a l to Henry's Dionysian person a l i t y . In t h i s , she i s a force for n o n - l i f e and must not be allowed to stand i n the way of l i f e . The horse St. Mawr stands i n the same r e l a t i o n to Lou Witt as the fox does to March. In both s t o r i e s , the ce n t r a l eponymous animal i s conceived i n very l i t e r a l terms, and i t i s the suggestive power of th i s l i t e r a l n e s s that works i t s power within the psychology of the main protagonists. There i s profound disagreement amongst c r i t i c s as to the o v e r a l l q u a l i t y of "St. Mawr" but there i s a consensus of favourable impressions as far as the device of the horse i s concerned. For E l i s e o Vivas, who thinks the story one of Lawrence's worst e f f o r t s , "St. Mawr embodies v i t a l i t y i t s e l f , a l l that i s wild and untameable and quivering with the creative power of the ,44 cosmos. Leavis,, who ranks t h i s story towards the top of the l i s t , s i m i l a r l y argues f o r the au t h e n t i c i t y of the horse: "We are made to f e e l — and i t i s an extraordinary cr e a t i v e triumph of the p o e t — t h a t he [the horse] 192 represents deep impulsions of l i f e that are thwarted i n the modern w o r l d . " H J I m p l i c i t i n Leavis's comment i s the idea that St. Mawr s i g n i f i e s a force beyond i t s e l f yet i n t e g r a l to i t s very nature. Lou Witt responds pro-foundly to the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the horse where that s i g n i f i c a n c e i s embodied i n his power to be himself: In the inner dark she saw a handsome bay horse with h i s clean ears pricked l i k e daggers from h i s naked head as he swang handsomely round to stare at the open doorway. He had b i g , black b r i l l i a n t eyes, with a sharp questioning g l i n t , and that of tense, a l e r t quietness which betrays an animal that can be dangerous.,,. 46 Lou saw the b r i l l i a n t skin of the horse c r i n k l e a l i t t l e i n apprehensive a n t i c i p a t i o n , l i k e the shadow of the descending hand on a b r i g h t red-gold l i q u i d . (P.19) She l a i d her hand on h i s side, and gently stroked him. Then she stroked h i s shoulder, and then the hard, tense arch of his neck. And she was s t a r t l e d to f e e l the v i v i d heat of h i s l i f e come through to her, through the lacquer of red-gold gloss. So s l i p p e r y with v i v i d , hot l i f e . (p.21) The horse was r e a l l y g l o r i o u s : l i k e a marigold, with a pure golden sheen, a shimmer of gren-gold lacquer, upon a burning red-orange. There on the shoulder you saw the yellow lacquer g l i s t e n . (p.25) The colour imagery of these passages i s e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g and establishes the horse as bathed i n a c o l o u r f u l sheen of splendour. The e f f e c t i s a more extensive d e s c r i p t i o n of the Dionysian fox, and the power t h i s horse exerts over Lou i s s i m i l a r l y v i t a l . Wherever Lou i s , from now on St. Mawr i s a v i t a l presence to her: "But back of i t a l l was St. Mawr, looming l i k e a bonfire i n the dark" (p.39). Indeed, for Lou "since she had r e a l l y seen St. Mawr looming f i e r y and t e r r i b l e i n an outer darkness, 193 she could not believe the world she l i v e d i n " (p.35). The p r i n c i p l e at work i n the l i v e horse i s strong enough to overshadow and reduce the every-day world of r e a l i t y . How do we describe the power that for Lou St. Mawr exemplifies? Kenneth Inniss i s content to speak of i t as a " f a i r l y conventional emblem," but t h i s i s surely unsatisfactory. To begin with there seems nothing at a l l "conventional" about St. Mawr, and to characterise him as an emblem (li'.ke a flag?) i s to divest him of the obvious q u a l i t i e s he contains. Echoing Leavis, Vivas i s closer to the truth when he writes, "Within the context of the story, St. Mawr i s what he i s , he does not represent anything abstract, whether deep forces of l i f e or shallow ones, nor does he stand for 48 anything." This i s an e f f e c t i v e way of putting i t , and i t i s j u s t t h i s q u a l i t y of being nothing more than i t s e l f which a t t r a c t s Lou. For her, he i s not a symbol i n the sense that he represents something other than himself. The i n e v i t a b l e contrast Lou Witt makes i s between the horse and her husband, Rico, and as the story develops i t becomes p l a i n that the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the horse bears a r e l a t i o n to the f a i l u r e of Lou and Rico's marriage and to the general impotence of the modern male. The horse i s seen to be everything that the modern male i s not, and when St. Mawr throws Rico and c r i p p l e s him t h i s i s seen as an outward manifestation of a s p i r i t u a l p a r a l y s i s that had set i n much e a r l i e r and which has turned Rico's marriage into a purely 'platonic' a f f a i r . This theme c l e a r l y reminds us of the s i t u a t i o n i n Lady Chatterly's Lover i n which C l i f f o r d ' s c r i p p l e d condition i s i n d i c a t i v e of something more c e n t r a l l y wrong. The presence of the horse i s to c r y s t a l l i z e Lou's growing sense of what i s wrong with her l i f e . 194 It i s not, i t should be stressed, merely a matter of sex, but rather involves the a b i l i t y of a man to be independently himself and for th i s to manifest i t s e l f i n sexual as well as other terms. The thematic and technical s i g n i f i c a n c e of the horse should now be c l e a r : i t s e s s e n t i a l aliveness represents " l i f e " i n a way that modern man doesn't. I t i s expressly the mysterious "animal" q u a l i t y that i s lacking i n Rico, the lack of which allows him to be coddled and sentimentalized by F l o r a Mamby. However, i t i s strongly indicated that Rico does l a t e n t l y contain the necessary power to a t t r a c t a woman l i k e Lou: ...that was Rico. He daren't quite b i t ... He was a f r a i d of himself, once he l e t himself go. He didn't want to erupt l i k e some suddenly wicked h o r s e — R i c o was r e a l l y more l i k e a horse than a dog, a horse that might go nasty any moment. For the time he was good, dangerously good. (p.18) Rico's l a t e n t dangerousness associates him d i r e c t l y with St. Mawr, but of course he never does " l e t himself go" and h i s more natural impulses remain submerged beneath h i s c i v i l i z e d surface. In t h i s , he i s r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from Lewis, the Welsh groom, and Phoenix, the American Indian. I t i s the former of these that manages, understands, and sympathizes with St. Mawr, and we view him as a near human equivalent to the horse's i s o l a t e d unique-ness. To a l e s s e r extent, Phoenix i s the American version of the a b o r i g i n a l Briton, Lewis, and both are seen as i n contact with themselves i n a way denied to men l i k e Rico. Both Lou Witt and her mother are strangely attracted to these two men, Lou to Phoenix and Mrs. Witt to Lewis. Mrs. Witt says of Lewis, "When I speak to him I never know whether I'm speaking to a man or a horse." The 195 man i s , on the surface at any rate, cold and hard and dis t a n t , and sees i n Mrs. Witt's a f f e c t i o n for him only a w i l l f u l condescension which precludes the kind of stern respect that he would demand from any woman who he would l e t touch h i s body (p.115). Lou develops a s i m i l a r but far le s s intense i n t e r e s t i n Phoenix, and both women in c r e a s i n g l y turn towards men they consider invested with some of the a t t r i b u t e s of St. Mawr; both women explore profoundly the idea of discovering men that are the human aspects of the horse. Take, for example, t h i s long quotation i n which the theme of man and animals emerges i n a i n s t r u c t i v e way: 'I wonder how old a man Lewis i s , L o u i s e ! Didn't he look absurdly young, with h i s ears p r i c k i n g up?' 'I think Rico said he was f o r t y or forty-one.' 'And never been married?' 'No, not as f a r as I know.' 'Isn't that curious now! — j u s t an animal! no mind! A man with no mind! I've always thought that the most despicable thing. Yet such wonderful h a i r to touch. Your Henry has quite a good mind, yet I would simply shrink from touching h i s h a i r . I suppose one l i k e s stroking a cat's f u r , j u s t the same. Just the animal i n man. Curious that I never seem to have met i t , Louise. Now I come to think of i t , he has the eyes of a human cat: a human tom-cat. Would you c a l l him stupid? Yes, he's very stupid.' 'Why mother ... I think one gets so t i r e d of your men with mind, as you c a l l i t ... It seems to me there's something else besides mind and cleverness, or niceness or cleanness. Perhaps i t i s the animal. Just think of St. Mawr! I've thought so much about him. We c a l l him an animal, but we never know what i t means. He seems a far greater mystery to me than a clever man. He's a horse. Why can&#