{"id":748,"date":"2007-07-16T14:57:35","date_gmt":"2007-07-16T12:57:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/terresdecrivains.org\/index.php\/2007\/07\/16\/jamaica-inn-a-reflection-of-daphne-du-mauriers-cornwall-vi\/"},"modified":"2021-06-25T20:29:25","modified_gmt":"2021-06-25T18:29:25","slug":"jamaica-inn-a-reflection-of-daphne-du-mauriers-cornwall-vi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/terresdecrivains.org\/index.php\/2007\/07\/16\/jamaica-inn-a-reflection-of-daphne-du-mauriers-cornwall-vi\/","title":{"rendered":"Jamaica Inn : A Reflection of Daphne du Maurier’s Cornwall (VI)"},"content":{"rendered":"

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER
\n
A biography<\/a><\/p>\n

WRITING CORNWALL
\n
a Setting and plot<\/a>
\n
b Suspense and mystery<\/a>
\n
c Daphne du Maurier’s rewriting of Cornwall<\/a>
\n
d Fact versus fancy<\/a><\/p>\n

DAPHNE DU MAURIER AND GOTHIC IMAGINATION
\n
a Ghosts in Jamaica Inn<\/a>
\n
b The \u00ab\u00a0uncanny\u00a0\u00bb<\/a>
\n
c Boundaries of the self<\/a><\/p>\n

SYMBOLISM AND lMAGERY lN JAMAICA INN
\n
a Animal farm
\n
b Escape
\n
c Treasure island<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

c Boundaries of the self<\/strong><\/p>\n

ln a letter to Oriel Malet, Daphne du Maurier wrote \u00ab\u00a0How close hunger is to greed, how difficult not to be confused, how close one’s better nature to one’s worst, and finally, how the self must be stripped of everything before it can understand love. But one can’t tell that to the ordinary reader\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>[[Letters from Menabilly. Portrait of a friendship<\/em>, Ed. Oriel Malet
\nLondon: Orion Books Ltd, 1994 (80).]]. <\/p>\n

ln fact, Daphne du Maurier’s use of images of mirroring in the novel seems to echo her latter statement. Because of their resemblance to each other and because of the controversial reactions they provoke in Mary, Jem and Joss
\nMerlyn are at the root of Mary’s confusion, as illustrated in this extract :<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0These fingers attracted her ; the others repelled her. She realized for the first time that aversion and attraction ran side by side ; that the boundary-
\nline was thin between them.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (126)<\/p>\n

Mary’s confusion towards the two brothers is unquestionably
\nan important element of the novel. This confusion could
\npossibly result from Mary’s own sense of her identity,
\nitself confused, because the characters which surround her,
\neach more revolting than the previous one, force the main
\ncharacter to adapt her behaviour. <\/p>\n

Consequently, this \u00ab\u00a0chameleon-like\u00a0\u00bb behaviour makes the choice between feminity and masculinity almost impossible. It is essential to examine each identity represented in the novel in terms of the danger they imply for Mary, and to analyse the way these identities merge among themselves, before putting foward any hypothesis about Mary’s sense of her own identity.<\/p>\n

The striking resemblance between the two brothers is primarily underlined when Mary encounters Jem Merlyn for the first time : <\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0He had Joss Merlyn’s eyes, without the blood-flecked lines and without the pouches, and he had Joss Merlyn’s mouth, firm though, where the landlord’s was weak […]\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (63) <\/p>\n

However, in this example, Mary still focuses her attention on the brothers’ differences, and it is only a few pages later that these differences entirely vanish (\u00ab\u00a0[Jem] looked exactly like his brother\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (67)), taking Mary’s confusion to its extreme :<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0[Joss Merlyn’s] mouth, so like his brother’s, hovered an instant on hers, the illusion was horrible and complete […]\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (175)<\/p>\n

ln addition, these similarities are not restricted to the brothers’ faces. Their fingers, too, are identical :
\nJoss Merlyn’ s fingers are \u00ab\u00a0long\u00a0\u00bb, \u00ab\u00a0powerful\u00a0\u00bb, \u00ab\u00a0hideous in their strength and grace\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (59) ; Jem Merlyn’s fingers are \u00ab\u00a0long and slim\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> with \u00ab\u00a0the same strength, the same grace, as his brother’s\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (126). If Mary’s attention is systematically turned to the brothers’ fingers, it is maybe because fingers, unlike other parts of the body, have the power to touch, to immobilize, and to threaten sexually. As Joss Merlyn underlines, the strings of the world can be held between two fingers (25). As a female, Mary is exposed to male brutality, both verbally and physically. This sexual threat is, for instance, implied several times by Joss Merlyn’s behaviour. ln fact, Joss Merlyn plays the role of the pervert, who would have no scruples about taking advantage of his niece’s situation to satisfy his sexual desire. Many examples illustrate this point and Joss Merlyn’s doubtful intentions (which will however remain intentions) are alluded to by himself as well as by his brother. For example, Joss declares : \u00ab\u00a0I could have had you your first week at Jamaica Inn if l’d wanted you. You are a woman after all\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (175). <\/p>\n

Jem confuses Mary with his brother’s \u00ab\u00a0fancy lady\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (65). Then, mentioning Aunt Patience, he also adds : \u00ab\u00a0Do you turn her out on the floor, or do you sleep all three abreast ?\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (63). <\/p>\n

Worst of all, these allusions frequently turn out to be direct humiliations, as Mary is compared to \u00ab\u00a0a woman of the streets\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (145), or to \u00ab\u00a0nothing but a common slut\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (155). The sexual threat is also carried by the smugglers for whom \u00ab\u00a0the presence of a woman [brings] a vicious tang to their enjoyment\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (158). The most striking example of the men’s abject attitude towards Mary is illustrated by the following scene, in which Mary only just escapes being raped. ln this extract, physical power, specifically that of the pedlar’s hands, becomes a reality :<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00bb […] but this time he grabbed at her and lurched sideways upon her, all pretence of gentle persuasion gone, his strength horrible, his face drained of all colour. He was fighting now for possession, and she knew it, and, aware that his strength was greater than hers and must prevail in the end, she lay limp suddenly, to deceive him, giving him the advantage for the moment.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (162)<\/p>\n

Jem Merlyn, although less abject than the rest of the company, and perceived as belonging to another race, (he is for example differentiated from the other men by the expression \u00ab\u00a0half-bred gypsy\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (109)) also represents the danger of masculinity. He could easily be described as the typical byronic hero, both glamourous and dangerous, involved in mysterious crimes. His activity as a horse thief, his way of life, his \u00ab\u00a0rough brutality of manner\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (64) and his possible involvment in his brother’s trade are enough to dishearten Mary. Her disgust towards the attitude of men consequently finds expression in her excessive reaction towards Jem (which can be interpreted as an act of self preservation), when she first encounters him :<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0The sight of him looking her up and down and drinking his ale at the same time irritated her beyond measure. […] His manner infuriated Mary, and she leant foward and pulled the pipe out of his hand, throwing it behind her on the floor, where it smashed at once.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (61-62) <\/p>\n

Then, even if we learn that Mary knows she \u00ab\u00a0could love him\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (122), the reader is soon warned that Mary and Jem are \u00ab\u00a0companions without the strain of being man and woman\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (129), and that the emotional bond which exists between them is more representative of \u00ab\u00a0a boyish familiarity\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (129), than of the beginnings of a love affair. As implied by the expression \u00ab\u00a0boyish familiarity\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>, Mary’s attitude is often that of a man, and her behaviour differs and adapts
\naccording to the individuals she confronts. For example, she
\nbehaves like a man with Joss Melyn, both to defend her aunt
\nand to win the struggle against her uncle : \u00ab\u00a0There’s a
\ncertain grim satisfaction in this struggle with my uncle
\nthat emboldens me at times\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (147). Mary constantly has in
\nmind qualities such as bravery and strength of character and
\nshe also overtly declares : \u00a0\u00bbl’m strong, I can do the job of
\na man\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (9). Later she wonders \u00ab\u00a0why [are] women such fools, so
\nshort sighted and unwise\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (64). ln fact, in the squalid
\natmosphere of Jamaica Inn, feminity is far from being an
\nasset, and Mary accordingly refuses everything which reminds
\nher of her feminity. Jem Merlyn’s attempt to flatter Mary’s
\nfeminity with \u00ab\u00a0a new handkerchief\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (124) is futile, for Mary
\ncoldly replies : \u00ab\u00a0l’ m afraid you’ve wasted your money\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (124) .
\nJem Merlyn’s dream to be accompanied by \u00ab\u00a0a pretty girl\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> in
\nthe streets of Launceston is hopeless. Rather, Jem finally
\naccepts Mary’s wish to have been born a boy : \u00ab\u00a0If you must
\nbe a boy, l can’t stop you\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (195). On the other hand, Mary’s
\nattitude is completely reversed when she is confronted by
\nher aunt. Rather than behaving like a man, she seems to play
\nthe role of a mother. She treats Aunt Patience as if she
\nwere \u00ab\u00a0a child on her hands\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (72). Indeed, Aunt Patience’s
\nbehaviour is that of a child and the vocabulary used to
\ndepict her is the same used to describe the behaviour of a
\nfrightened little girl : she \u00ab\u00a0blabber[s] incoherently\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (73),
\nshe keeps \u00ab\u00a0working her mouth nervously\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (76) or \u00ab\u00a0twists her
\nhands in her dress\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (74). This childlike attitude reveals a character who lives in complete submission to her husband. <\/p>\n

And it is this very submission which deeply revolts Mary and
\nfeeds her struggle against men. However, the reader is
\nsurprised to note that, once she is at Jem Merlyn’s place on
\nthe moors, she imitates her aunt’s behaviour. Interestingly,
\nat Jem’s side the rebellious girl abandons her principles
\nand momentarily transforms her attitude into that of a
\nsubmissive and possible wife. She lays the table and cooks
\nJem’s supper in response to what is almost an order : \u00ab\u00a0I
\nalways say there’s two things women ought to do by instinct,
\nand cooking’s one of them. […] You’ve come in good time to
\ncook my dinner\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (102-103). The reader is taken aback to
\nwitness what resembles one of Aunt Patience’s ordinary
\ndomestic scenes and discussions, through Mary’s actions
\n\u00ab\u00a0Take your hands away. The plate’s hot\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (103). Mary’s female
\ninstinct is therefore underlying, and obviously reappears in
\nthis scene. It is maybe no accident that a few words later
\nthe reader also witnesses Mary’s confusion towards her own
\nidentity, strikingly depicted as Mary sees her distorted
\nreflection in the mirror. Indeed, the woman reflected in
\n\u00ab\u00a0the tell-tale mirror\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (120) seems to be nothing other than
\nthe very shadow of Aunt Patience :<\/p>\n


\n\u00ab\u00a0For the first time in her life she saw a
\nresemblance between herself and Aunt Patience. They
\nhad the same pucker of the forehead, and the same
\nmouth. If she pursed up her lips and worked them,
\nbiting the edges, it might be Aunt Patience who stood there, with the lank brown hair framing her face.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (120)<\/p>\n

Mary’s image, horribly transformed into Aunt Patience’s
\nreflection, represents a threat to her happiness. To some
\nextent this scene may be intended to prevent Mary from
\nbecoming this woman, who is a caricature of female
\nsubmission. As we have seen, all the identities which
\nencircle Mary have managed to destabilize and confuse her as
\nwell as increase her vulnerability. Furthermore,
\nher
\nvulnerability is also emphasized by the massive walls of
\nJamaica Inn which \u00ab\u00a0def[y] man and storm\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (29) and which
\nalways remind her she is made prisoner… in a prison of the
\nself. Indeed, it is Mary’s identity, more than her physical
\nbody, which seems definitely imprisoned. Thus, as suggested
\nby Eug\u00e9nia C. Delamotte, \u00ab\u00a0confronted with a prison wall, a
\nlocked door, a black veil, a mask, the edge of a precipice, the self runs up again and again against its mortality\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>[[Eug\u00e9nia C. Delamotte, Perils of the Night. A Feminist study of Nineteenth Century Gothic<\/em>. 1990. Oxford University Press (119).]].
\nConsequently, if we borrow Delamotte’s words, Mary seems \u00ab\u00a0imprisoned in the self, in the limitations of mortality\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>[[Ibid, p 123.]].
\nShe is in fact torn between a masculinity she cannot come to
\nterms with, and a femininity she completely refutes. So the
\nvicar, who doesn’t belong to the world which sickens her,
\nwho embodies neither masculinity, nor submissive femininity,
\ncould represent the ideal way out. Yet this way out is only
\nvalid thanks to the
\nsymbolic violation
\nof physical boundaries, that is to say the windows and barred rooms of
\nJamaica Inn.<\/p>\n

As in Emily Bront\u00eb’s Wuthering Heights<\/em>, no physical boundary
\nremains intact, no barred room remains locked. The desire to
\ntransgress is overwhelming. A few examples of Mary’s desire
\nfor transgression will suffice to illustrate the previous
\nidea.
\nThe reader is made aware that Mary is stuck inside
\nJamaica Inn like a fish in a fish tank, \u00ab\u00a0the broad sturdy
\nhouse acting as a screen\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (73), there is \u00ab\u00a0no road of
\nescape\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (55). However, it doesn’t take long for Mary to
\nrealize that these barriers are not impassable. Indeed, Mr
\nBassat’s action of unlocking the barred room symbolically
\ninitiates Mary’ s desire to transgress barriers (she witnesses the scene \u00ab\u00a0with some excitement\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (77)). Then, the first striking example of Mary’s refusal to be subjected to physical boundaries is represented through her escape from
\nthe coach, before the wrecking scene. She is determined to break this physical boundary at all costs, and the wounds caused by her action seem to be less important than the satisfaction obtained by this transgression :<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0The door was locked, as she knew, but with straining and wringgling she might yet attempt to squeeze her body through the narrow frame. The
\nendeavour was worth the risk.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (160)<\/p>\n

This destruction of physical boundaries also occurs when Jem
\nMerlyn \u00ab\u00a0smashe[s] the pane of a glass with his fist\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (193),
\nin order to rejoin Mary, locked in her bedroom. Another crucial element of the text lies in the novel’s ambivalence about the heroine’s reaction to the law.<\/p>\n

Indeed, if she is first shocked by the smugglers’ trade because it infringes the law, she soon tempers her judgement. She first considers that \u00ab\u00a0[s]muggling [is] dangerous ; it [is] fraught with dishonesty ; it [is] forbidden strictly by the law\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (48) ; but then she wonders if it is \u00ab\u00a0evil\u00a0\u00bb, adding later that \u00ab\u00a0[s]he would have shrugged her shoulders to smuggling alone\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (58). The law here
\nrepresents a moral boundary to defy, and Mary does so
\nthrough her companionship with Jem Merlyn. For example, in
\nLaunceston, even though she doesn’t take an active part in
\nthe illegal sale of the stolen pony, she becomes his
\naccomplice, and to a certain extent breaks the law with him, for she doesn’t impede the deal. On the contrary, this tricky situation creates a sense of excitation, mostly conveyed by the two friends’ laughter (136). At the end of
\nthe novel, Mary disregards the meaning of the law when she
\ndoesn’t hesitate to grab hold of a pistol, and the reader,
\nknowing the character’s determination, seems to be expected
\nto think she would use it if necessary :<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0Then she levelled her pistol, her finger upon the
\ntrigger, and looked round the corner of the stone
\nwall to the yard.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> (214) <\/p>\n

Thus, this series of examples tends to clarify our
\nunderstanding of the message given to the reader, and
\nimplied through the gothic writing style. Indeed, Jamaica
\nInn<\/em> deals with the self in terms of gender, and reveals the crucial lack of identity of a woman under patriarchal influence. This patriarchal
\ninfluence points out the female’s weakness, and consequently, the female rebels both against her social status as the weaker and worthless sex,
\nand against the conventions established by the ruling
\ngender. This rebellion is metaphorically expressed through
\nthe heroine’s impulse to get across the barriers, through
\nher desire of transgression. ln the light of what has been
\nnoted, it can be assumed that Jamaica Inn<\/em> rewrites sorne of
\nthe Bront\u00ebs’ themes, expressed in the same way in terms of
\nmirroring images, physical boundaries, and concern with the
\nuncanny. Marxist criticism has considered the theme of
\nsubmission as being central to Jane Eyre, Feminists have
\nunderlined the treatment of women in society, also implied in the novel[[Sayer, Karen. Jane Eyre. (York Notes Advanced)<\/em> London: Librairies du Liban publishers, 1988 (73).]]. Wuthering Heights<\/em> has been interpreted by Feminists in terms of \u00ab\u00a0the strategies and opportunities that
\nare open to women in the novel\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> ; gender criticism has
\nstressed \u00ab\u00a0the ambivalent representations of gender in
\nWuthering Heights\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>[[Jones, Claire. Wuthering Heights. (York Notes Advanced)<\/em> London: Librairies du Liban publishers, 1988 (74).]].
\nFinally, the connections between Jamaica Inn<\/em> and Wuthering Heights<\/em> have been pointed out by Avril Horner and Sue Zlosnik’s research : \u00ab\u00a0Alison Light has recognized [Jamaica Inn’s] debt to Wuthering Heights\u00a0\u00bb[[Horner, Avril and Zlosnik, Sue. Daphne du Maurier. Writing. Identity and the Gothic Imagination<\/em>. ST. Martin’s Press, INC, 1998 (71).]].<\/p>\n

Indeed, Jamaica Inn, if not overtly devoted to the writing of women’s social reality in general, seems to provide enough material to read Daphne du Maurier’s subtext in connection with the writer’s fractured sense of her self,
\na self which struggles to find its place in society. On this
\npoint, an extract of Eug\u00e9nia C. Delamotte’s argumentation
\ncould help to justify our reasoning :<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0Gothic romance by women represents the hidden,
\nunspeakable reality of women’s lives
\nnot just their lives in the private inner world of the
\npsyche, but also their social and economic lives in
\na real world of patriarchal institutions. The
\noneiric settings of Gothic romance are superficially
\nremoved from that world in space and often in time,
\nbut they nonetheless represent it symbolically. The
\noneiric world, set apart from diurnal reality, is
\nthat reality not simply in the sense that it expresses the heroine’s psychological state but also in that it represents her social situation, with its
\ndominant power relations stripped of their civilized disguise. The conflicts and terrors that reign in that world reveal her place in society, her relationships, her special vulnerability\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>[[Eug\u00e9nia C. Delamotte, Perils of the Night. A Feminist study of Nineteenth Century Gothic<\/em>. 1990. Oxford University Press ( 165).]].<\/p>\n

A perceptive reader may then recognize the hidden message
\nconveyed by the writer’s gothic imagination. It is perhaps
\nthis very gothic imagination which contributed to Daphne du
\nMaurier’s self-evolution. And it is precisely on the symbolic level mentioned by Delamotte, that our argumentation will take on its full significance. <\/p>\n

Copyright : Ombeline Belkadi (odalavie@wanadoo.fr).<\/p>\n

\u00c0 suivre…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER A biography WRITING CORNWALL a Setting and plot b Suspense and mystery c Daphne du Maurier’s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[2],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/terresdecrivains.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/748"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/terresdecrivains.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/terresdecrivains.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/terresdecrivains.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/terresdecrivains.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=748"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/terresdecrivains.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/748\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3873,"href":"https:\/\/terresdecrivains.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/748\/revisions\/3873"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/terresdecrivains.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/terresdecrivains.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/terresdecrivains.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}