Back again briefly ~ I read this wrong last night. Actually, those exact lines stood out to me as well, being so typically Lawrence. Good observation. You all can recognise a Lawrence phrase now. A for everyone!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
Printable View
Back again briefly ~ I read this wrong last night. Actually, those exact lines stood out to me as well, being so typically Lawrence. Good observation. You all can recognise a Lawrence phrase now. A for everyone!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
I found it too. :lol: But I won't be able to read until the weekend. Work is too exhausting right now and I just want to vegetate when I get home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
:lol: Yes, not a surprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
I'm currently reading some stuff to teach a youth group - but I'm going to download this story. Virgil I already downloaded Salinger's, so give me a bit of time and I'll get to both of them!
Great! Salinger's will be a really fast read. This one is a bit harder. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by grace86
As most of you are still reading, the discussion won't start untill the weekend :) In the meantime: some more "background" information.
I promise I will not give the ending away. ;)
Publishing date and different versions
The Cambridge University Press version of the bundle England, My England has an introductory in which is mentioned that this story was written in June 1915. This is quite remarkable, for the story itself lasts until late autumn/winter 1915 - so though the story is based upon real life figures, he is not exactly describing their life. Let me rephrase that: he is not following the happenings in their lives to the book. Of course he isn't giving a biographical account of his friends lives: the story is fiction.
It was published first in the English Review in October 1915. It did not appear in bookform until 1922 - in those days it was financially preferable to periodical publication (in magazines), which offered substantial fees. Once a story was in volume-form, there would be no such fees, only
the likelyhood of a much lower income from royalities for a year or two.
But in September 1920 Mountsier (from what I gather, an American publisher or agent whom [gr? object? :crazy: :blush:] he later has a falling out with) suggests a volume of short stories and Lawrence starts to gather them. Late in 1921, Lawrence set himself to this task and starts to send in stories. The story England, My England was posted on 9 January 1922,
This makes me very curious about the original (1915) version. :nod: This was written in the middle of the war. Or well, maybe rather the beginning: the trenches were dug, but the people weren't tired of the war yet - they still had some hopes. Lawrence might have been unhappy about the war, but I find it hard to imagine he could grasp the total horror of it all at that stage. His revision for the story to put it into the "collected stories" called England, my England is from around 1920: by this time the First World War was over, and most of its horrors were known, even to the ones who "stayed at home". I imagine this can have had huge effect on the last part of the story (the war scenes).Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambridge University Press Introduction
If I understand the introduction correctly, there even is a difference between the English bundle (Seeker) "England, My England", and the American (Mountsier) - though maybe not in this story. But
For not only Lawrence rewrote the stories, things got changed during the editing for publication as well :crazy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambridge University Press Introduction
When anybody wants to read about this all for himself (it will make it clearer, promise ;) ), here is the {link}
The bottom of the Sea
In the introduction of the Penguin book from 1960 (my version), it is said that
:eek: He said this due to a nasty coincidence of reality and fiction... And I can totaly imagine his first reaction was to wish it to the bottom of the sea! But, in my opinion, wishing something to the bottom of the say doesn't necessarily mean you want to never have written it. You just don't want anybody to read it (anymore). It might still be important in his development as a writer.. Or he just changed his mind at the end of the letter - it is hard to use "backspace" or "delete" on a written letter :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Introduction Penguin books (1960, Complete 2'6 Unabridged)
Story Title
There's a William Ernest Henley poem called "Pro Rege Nostro" It became popular during the First World War because it was quite patriotic: it has the lines "England, My England" in them - more precisely, in every second line of each verse - 5 in total.
It might be that Lawrence knew this poem and used the phrase in his title (as wikipedia claims). He probably uses it in a cynical manner, though. I don't think the story is patriotic, or at least not in the propaganda (for the war) kind of way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro Rege Nostro
As for the Book Bundle title, see post 3140 2nd alinea, 3141 2nd alinea and finaly 3142 Second
Well, that is all for now. :D I'll be of reading the pdf "Lawrence, War and Nation" now ;) Have fun reading the story! :hurray:
After reading the commentary Lawrence, War and nation. All the quotes are from this pdf.
In the previous post I mentioned that I am curious about the differences between the 1915 version and the 1922 version of this story. So I am happy to tell you all that some of these differences are mentioned in the above pdf-file :hurray:
Next to this, it pays attention to the context of the tale in the time it was written. It gives some motives of the story and tries to make clear why Lawrence used those - within his ideas and the ideas of his time. In the end, it focusses on Expressionism, as they see the part about WWI in Flanders as an expression of this movement.
Publication history
I think this is a bit clearer than the way I put it:
Relation to real lifeQuote:
Originally Posted by pdf
Lawrence stayed very close to real life events in this story - following their exact timeline!
So Winifred would be Madeline, Perceval becomes Egbert and Sylvia is Joyce.Quote:
Originally Posted by pdf
Different versions
As said under publication history, the 1922 version of the story is about twice as long as the 1915 story. A lot has happened between 1915 and 1922, and Lawrence's ideas have developed. Personally, I think the version we read (the 1922 version) is very "explaining". Motives get repeated quite a bit, and while reading I really got the idea that the writer wanted to show his worldview. I wonder how apparent this is in the shorter 1915 version.
Another difference is that Egbert (1922) was called Evelyn (1915), Evelyn Daughtry. :D I always thought that was a girls name! :blush:
The end and the beginning differ. If you want to know the alternative ending, I suggest you read the pdf, page 8. It moves towards the horror-genre :eek: As for the original start of the story: it starts the narration at the end. While the 1922 version starts in 1913, moves back to 1904 and then towards 1913 and towards 1915 - the original version of the story starts in 1915, moves to 1913 (begin 1922 version) and then probably as the 1922 version. Probably, for this is not mentioned in the pdf and it could be that the whole 1904 to 1913 is missing in the 1915 version - that would explain the fact that the 1922 version is twice as long!
In pictures:
ORIGINALLY
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/c...915version.jpg
REVISED (1922)
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/c...922version.jpg
I personally think this is a very interesting commentary, but maybe it is more fun to read it after we've discussed it. That way, it is easier to keep an open mind :D At least, that is how I look at commentaries ;)
NOTIFICATION
We have not start discussing the real story yet - the first part of the story will be posted on Saturday Evening (Janine time-zone :p).
For the introduction to the story, see this post
Janine's time zone :rofl:...now that could be anywhere for 10PM to wee hours of Sunday! As most know here, Janine is a nite owl. Sapphire - you asked my hours of operation in your message post - answer: anytime at all but usually late in the evening. I am just waking up then! I am much more creative at night and more productive; or at least, I used to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up Incredible - you indepth study of the commentary. Geez, usually no one reads the links I provide. Now I am anxious to read the entire commentary, as well. One comment - Lawrence often rewrote his stories and even his novels. Lady Chatterly has at least 3 versions. We could either say that Lawrence was never satisfied and changable or that he was versatile. One thing for certain, he was prolithic. The man wrote a ton of stuff; of which I am just now discovering even more. Who knows how much more he may have written that did indeed end up at the bottom of the sea. Anyway, salt water preserves certain things so maybe years from now they will bring up more of Lawrence's brilliant gems. And by the way, Sapphire, you are a 'gem'....I mean that, no pun intended! I just might have to sign you on as my assistent in posting stories. See what you started. :lol:
Excellent commentary on the commentary and well written! Good job!!!:iagree: with everything you observed, even though I have not yet read the commentary paper. Way to go - let's celebrate :cheers2:
PS: thanks for not using the blue!
Thank you for your kind words :blush: And sure, always in for a celebration ;) :hurray:
I had to google "prolithic" and I have to say: I am not sure what it means :blush: - And yes, I also tried the good old dictionary ;) Is it the words "lit(h)erature" and "prolific" thrown together? I know it is a long shot, but in that context I can imagine it means "productive writer" :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
As for his other brilliant gems, I guess that is a perfect excuse to learn to dive :lol: Diving for hidden Lawrence treasures... Now the only question is - where did he throw them overboard? For then we can trace back the streams and maybe we could minimize the search grid :angel:
Oh, I saw the intro a couple of pages back and thought I was already late to the discussion. Looks like I'm early. I'll just wait until later on in Janine Stardard Time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
hahaha....,most likely I spelled it wrong. Why doesn't Litnet have 'spell check' ? grrrr. You will learn Janine's weak point is her spelling. It does mean productive and I don't think it has to necessarily apply to authors. It would apply to any accomplishment. Perhaps, it would apply to the arts which encompass many accomplishments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
Yes, let's all take diving lessons. We could comb the various oceans where Lawrence hung out; or we could search the hills of New Mexico and Mexico, the country. Perhaps someone in Australia is hording his works silently as we speak. They need to share these Lawrence tidbits with us now!
:seeya: Hi Quark! Not too late at all. We have some people dragging their heels. Hopefully, by this weekend they will have started the story, at least. To be honest, I have not read anymore since I started it a week ago; but then again I did read it many times prior. I am just so forgetful about the stories and the plots or meanings. I have to reread all over each time. I could just post parts (intend to start doing that later tonight), and then we can all read along at the same pace. So if you haven't read the entire story yet, it's no big deal. We can read and discuss it together. What do you think of that idea anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
hahah....Janine Standard Time....did you mean to type that as 'Stardard' Time? If so,:smilielol5: that is rather funny!
No worries. :) I think everybody makes a mistake every now and then - especially while typing - though I also have it while writing, as I think about the next word to write already and somehow manage to combine them :crazy: It is funny when one creates new words that way though ;)
New Mexico, Mexico, Australia... I wouldn't mind visiting those places :D.
I myself think that is quite possible, but I would prefer if everybody had read it at least once - so I can not spoil the ending ;) . I am a bit afraid that I could give it away :blush: I really do not want to spoil the story for anybody! I can get carried away a bit sometimes http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/f...-whistle-2.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine to Quark
That's true...some people may be blabber-mouths, like me. :lol: Anyway, best plan is for everyone to read it once and then we can begin. Perhaps I should post that text tomorrow; what does everyone think? Personally I have some things to do today out and I might be tired when I get home, although what is there to copying and pasting a bunch of text? Let me know, Sapphire, what you think? Can you wait until tomorrow; afterall by the time I do post it you are already one half a day ahead of me in time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
I've waited this long - what's another day ;) If it is more convenient for you, please: just do it when you are ready. Lets give everybody another day to read this story. :D
For the meantime: Johnny Logan - What's another year :p I didn't know that was a Eurovision song! One learns something every day... :)
:lol: I promise - it won't be another year!....Hey, isn't it night time where you live? I still haven't figured out the time difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
Hey, nice song. I never heard it but like it very much!
Here's the beginning section of the text to study and begin our discussion:
If you haven't read the story yet, don't panic. We can take this slowly. I am sure it will take longer than a month to discuss this story; since it is a longer story to begin with.Quote:
England, My England
He was working on the edge of the common, beyond the small brook that ran in the dip at the bottom of the garden, carrying the garden path in continuation from the plank bridge on to the common. He had cut the rough turf and bracken, leaving the grey, dryish soil bare. But he was worried because he could not get the path straight, there was a pleat between his brows. He had set up his sticks, and taken the sights between the big pine trees, but for some reason everything seemed wrong. He looked again, straining his keen blue eyes, that had a touch of the Viking in them, through the shadowy pine trees as through a doorway, at the green-grassed garden-path rising from the shadow of alders by the log bridge up to the sunlit flowers. Tall white and purple columbines, and the butt-end of the old Hampshire cottage that crouched near the earth amid flowers, blossoming in the bit of shaggy wildness round about.
There was a sound of children's voices calling and talking: high, childish, girlish voices, slightly didactic and tinged with domineering: 'If you don't come quick, nurse, I shall run out there to where there are snakes.' And nobody had the sangfroid to reply: 'Run then, little fool.' It was always, 'No, darling. Very well, darling. In a moment, darling. Darling, you must be patient.'
His heart was hard with disillusion: a continual gnawing and resistance. But he worked on. What was there to do but submit!
The sunlight blazed down upon the earth, there was a vividness of flamy vegetation, of fierce seclusion amid the savage peace of the commons. Strange how the savage England lingers in patches: as here, amid these shaggy gorse commons, and marshy, snake infested places near the foot of the south downs. The spirit of place lingering on primeval, as when the Saxons came, so long ago.
Ah, how he had loved it! The green garden path, the tufts of flowers, purple and white columbines, and great oriental red poppies with their black chaps and mulleins tall and yellow, this flamy garden which had been a garden for a thousand years, scooped out in the little hollow among the snake-infested commons. He had made it flame with flowers, in a sun cup under its hedges and trees. So old, so old a place! And yet he had re-created it.
The timbered cottage with its sloping, cloak-like roof was old and forgotten. It belonged to the old England of hamlets and yeomen. Lost all alone on the edge of the common, at the end of a wide, grassy, briar-entangled lane shaded with oak, it had never known the world of today. Not till Egbert came with his bride. And he had come to fill it with flowers.
The house was ancient and very uncomfortable. But he did not want to alter it. Ah, marvelous to sit there in the wide, black, time-old chimney, at night when the wind roared overhead, and the wood which he had chopped himself sputtered on the hearth! Himself on one side the angle, and Winifred on the other.
Ah, how he had wanted her: Winifred! She was young and beautiful and strong with life, like a flame in sunshine. She moved with a slow grace of energy like a blossoming, red-flowered bush in motion. She, too, seemed to come out of the old England, ruddy, strong, with a certain crude, passionate quiescence and a hawthorn robustness. And he, he was tall and slim and agile, like an English archer with his long supple legs and fine movements. Her hair was nut-brown and all in energic curls and tendrils. Her eyes were nut-brown, too, like a robin's for brightness. And he was white-skinned with fine, silky hair that had darkened from fair, and a slightly arched nose of an old country family. They were a beautiful couple.
The house was Winifred's. Her father was a man of energy, too. He had come from the north poor. Now he was moderately rich. He had bought this fair stretch of inexpensive land, down in Hampshire. Not far from the tiny church of the almost extinct hamlet stood his own house, a commodious old farmhouse standing back from the road across a bare grassed yard. On one side of this quadrangle was the long, long barn or shed which he had made into a cottage for his youngest daughter Priscilla. One saw little blue-and-white check curtains at the long windows, and inside, overhead, the grand old timbers of the high-pitched shed. This was Prissy's house. Fifty yards away was the pretty little new cottage which he had built for his daughter Magdalen, with the vegetable garden stretching away to the oak copse. And then away beyond the lawns and rose trees of the house-garden went the track across a shaggy, wild grass space, towards the ridge of tall black pines that grew on a dyke-bank, through the pines and above the sloping little bog, under the wide, desolate oak trees, till there was Winifred's cottage crouching unexpectedly in front, so much alone, and so primitive.
It was Winifred's own house, and the gardens and the bit of common and the boggy slope were hers: her tiny domain. She had married just at the time when her father had bought the estate, about ten years before the war, so she had been able to come to Egbert with this for a marriage portion. And who was more delighted, he or she, it would be hard to say. She was only twenty at the time, and he was only twenty-one. He had about a hundred and fifty pounds a year of his own--and nothing else but his very considerable personal attractions. He had no profession: he earned nothing. But he talked of literature and music, he had a passion for old folk-music, collecting folk-songs and folk-dances, studying the Morris-dance and the old customs. Of course in time he would make money in these ways.
Oh great, I just finished the story moments ago. I found it fascinating. I didn't remember a thing of it and it felt fresh from the beginning, though I thought I knew how it would end. There is lots to talk about. I certainly will have to read it again.
Now I have a question, especially to anyone joiniung this discussion who is British. What exactly is a "common"? Lawrence uses the word twice in that very first sentence. It also recurs throughout. I assume it's some sort of public property, but somehow I feel I'm missing a nuance of the word.
I know some joked about this in earlier posts but it's definitely relevant and the core of the story:
This is the thematic link between the first two thirds of the story and the last third. Yes, this will be Lawrence at his anti-feminist best. :DQuote:
There was a sound of children's voices calling and talking: high, childish, girlish voices, slightly didactic and tinged with domineering: 'If you don't come quick, nurse, I shall run out there to where there are snakes.' And nobody had the sangfroid to reply: 'Run then, little fool.' It was always, 'No, darling. Very well, darling. In a moment, darling. Darling, you must be patient.'
His heart was hard with disillusion: a continual gnawing and resistance. But he worked on. What was there to do but submit!
In the rest of that passage, Lawrence establishes a pre-lapsarian Eden-esk setting. That snake is important!
Glad you liked the story, Virgil. Good on your commentary; but you jumped a little ahead. I knew when the snake was mentioned the tone of the story began to change so I didn't include that in the first section of text. I agree with what you said though. I hope we can just discuss the beginning first. I also thought the snake was vitally important. Right off, I thought of L's famous 'snake' poem. I should post that, when we get to that part. Also, snakes appear so often in L's works. We have run into them quite a bit on this very thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Hummm...if you look up 'common' online, doesn't it give you the British meaning. I just took it as an expanse of land. I will look in my home dictionary which contains British meanings as well as American English.
Ah...on Wikipedia it says this about 'common':
Quote:
Common land (a common) is land owned collectively or by one person, but over which other people have certain traditional rights, such as to allow their livestock to graze upon it, to collect firewood, or to cut turf for fuel.[1] By extension, the term "commons" has come to be applied to other resources which a community has rights or access to. The older texts use the word "common" to denote any such right, but more modern usage is to refer to particular rights of common, and to reserve the name "common" for the land over which the rights are exercised.
Wow, that's a big part of the story indeed :D And here I was, thinking we might get only the first paragraph or something :lol:
Janine, thank you for quoting wikipedia (I need a wikipedia smiley! :p). I think the importance of "common" in this story, is that the house and the garden is owned by the Marshall, but the common "beyond the brook at the bottom of the garden" is not their property anymore. It is the part where Egbert shouldn't try to cultivate anymore - where the flowers grow on their own. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
It is part of the savage England :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
I do feel this thematic link, but I can not put it in words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
You call it anti-feministic, but I did not read the story that way. I do have to admit that for this particular part my eyes fell on "girlish voices, slightly didactic and tinged with domineering" and they started to roll :p. But on second thought, would Egbert not be just as annoyed if he had 3 boys who were behaving like that? Or is it rather the way Winifred and the Nurse deal with it, the way they raise the children which is anti-feministic?
The line "what was there to do but submit" really intrigues me. There is a lot he can do, but submit! Egbert does not make a good impression in this first part, not at all :nonod: But it does point out how he stands in live: no active interference. Though on the other hand, he does not submit in getting a job - so he does not submit there. Comming to think of it, he never really submits... he just goes his own way and let others go theirs, and while his way collides with others he refuses to change. :crazy:
Yes, it seems like Eden, doesn't it? :) A dark Eden though ;) The fact that the place is snake-infested is point out over and over again. And indeed, the snake is important. But not as important as I thought it would be :nonod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
My next post will be a commentary on the part of the story Janine posted. :D Give me some time though - I've got a lot of things jumping through my mind and a bit of a hard time putting it into words ;)
The first paragraph [He was working… wildness round about] tells a lot.
First, it gives the impression that “he” is working hard. The goal is clear: carry the garden path in continuation from the garden over the plank bridge on to the common. He has been busy :nod: Then, we read that “he” is worried. :eek: He thinks the job might not be well done.
No worries we think, just start all over again. But the point is, he did all according to plan, he set up his sticks and all – it did not work, it should have worked!
So the reader is left with the question: will he try again, will he start all over again? Or will he just do an half-*** job?
Further, we read about his eyes. :D I think one could write an essay about Lawrence’s use of eye-colour in his stories ;) It might be interesting to know what kind of characters he gives blue eyes, and what kind brown. I do not think he ever gave one green eyes – but do correct me when I’m wrong – I would be delighted ;). Any way, the “he” character has blue eyes,
As England and heritage/breeding is quite important in this story, this probably means that “he” is a descendant of the Vikings. Later on in the story, both Saxons and Normans are named. So maybe it is time for a little history?!Quote:
Originally Posted by story
As far as I can figure out, the Saxons were a confederation of Old-Germanic tribes which conquered England and merged with the Angles and Jutes and Frisians (:hurray:) to become Anglo-Saxons. These were dominant in England until the Norman Conquest in 1066. And these Normans were descended form Viking conquerors in France, Normandy. So, by having a touch of a Viking in him, he might be related to the Normans – NOT the Saxons. Or well, maybe them too (other line of breeding) ;) And it might also be that the Vikings also had left their DNA in the Anglo-Saxons, I know they did so in the Frisians :nod: So all in all, this history lesson does not learn us that much, just that he is portrayed as coming from a strong heritage.
Which is strange, for I myself do not see a Viking concerning himself with a garden :no: Very prejudice, I know – but the word Viking brings to my mind a strong warrior, and quite a brutish one for that matter. Nothing like Egbert… Except for the eyes :p No gateways to the soul this time…
While the reader is wondering about this all, the countryside is being described :) All those wonderful flowers :hurray: But surrounded by shaggy wilderness… there is bound to be trouble! Especially as Egbert does not seem very capable of taming the garden…
I really try to be as brief as I can… really :blush: :lol: I think I'll stop here for today or I'll overflow the thread :nod:
Sapphire, keep on writing. I am loving it; I am totally captivated. Of course, your pages might turn over and then others won't read what you have so carefully analysised and written. Good job and I especially like the contrast of the weedy 'uncontrolled' part of the common to the structured English garden. I wonder if Egbert is a bit a perfectionist and control freak. I think he can't have control over his family so he transfers that to his garden. The idea of planning the path and then not being able to have it just as he envisions it says much about his character. Perhaps, he is an idealist, much like the author. Bye the way, Lawrence was known by Bert in his youthful years. See any connection?
Thank you - you have given me a lot to think about. I will go and review that part of the text today more clearly myself.
Sorry for the delay, I won't be able to start reading it until this afternoon, I'll join in and read up on the posts when I do finish!
You are fine; not late at all. We barely scratched the surface so far. Grace, I am so glad you will take part. I have missed you. It will be fun. We have a good group here...a few more told me they will be joining us. Enjoy your reading. JQuote:
Originally Posted by grace86
Yes, I guess so. I can't help but feel that there is a suggestion of socialism in there. Afterall, it would contrast with the Marshall's wealth. For people's information, Lawrence was not enamored with socialism, but he disliked capitalism too. He believed in a sort of natural inheretance to land, as if human constructs can't define ownership. It's part of his primitivism, and I do think he's suggesting something like that with the "commons."Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
Ah, I will put it into words by the end of our discussion. :wink5:Quote:
I do feel this thematic link, but I can not put it in words.
You call it anti-feministic, but I did not read the story that way. I do have to admit that for this particular part my eyes fell on "girlish voices, slightly didactic and tinged with domineering" and they started to roll :p. But on second thought, would Egbert not be just as annoyed if he had 3 boys who were behaving like that? Or is it rather the way Winifred and the Nurse deal with it, the way they raise the children which is anti-feministic?
No I have to disagree, I do think he submits. He accepts the Marshall's money and their way of life. And he joining the war is an act of submission, in Lawrence's world view.Quote:
The line "what was there to do but submit" really intrigues me. There is a lot he can do, but submit! Egbert does not make a good impression in this first part, not at all :nonod: But it does point out how he stands in live: no active interference. Though on the other hand, he does not submit in getting a job - so he does not submit there. Comming to think of it, he never really submits... he just goes his own way and let others go theirs, and while his way collides with others he refuses to change. :crazy:
Yes, I think the snakes are part of Eden, just like the Biblical paradise. No, the snakes are important, but not in snake form. We'll get to that. :)Quote:
Yes, it seems like Eden, doesn't it? :) A dark Eden though ;) The fact that the place is snake-infested is point out over and over again. And indeed, the snake is important. But not as important as I thought it would be :nonod:
Agreed. This is part of the Eden Lawrence creates at the beginning of the story. The narrative is essentially a fall from grace and the ramifications of the fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
Absolutely siginificant. Blue eyes are a recurring symbol in Lawrence's works. Egbert is Nordic, from the north. Brown is from the south. Lawrence has associations with north and south. Remember the Mareshalls are from the north too but they come south to make their money.Quote:
Further, we read about his eyes. :D I think one could write an essay about Lawrence’s use of eye-colour in his stories ;) It might be interesting to know what kind of characters he gives blue eyes, and what kind brown. I do not think he ever gave one green eyes – but do correct me when I’m wrong – I would be delighted ;). Any way, the “he” character has blue eyes,
Nice history lesson. :lol: I think Anglo-Saxon and Vikings are interchangable here - they are of Germanic origins. Egbert is a very old anglo-saxon name. Contrast that with the name "Marshall" which is French and has a military association.Quote:
As England and heritage/breeding is quite important in this story, this probably means that “he” is a descendant of the Vikings. Later on in the story, both Saxons and Normans are named. So maybe it is time for a little history?!
As far as I can figure out, the Saxons were a confederation of Old-Germanic tribes which conquered England and merged with the Angles and Jutes and Frisians (:hurray:) to become Anglo-Saxons. These were dominant in England until the Norman Conquest in 1066. And these Normans were descended form Viking conquerors in France, Normandy. So, by having a touch of a Viking in him, he might be related to the Normans – NOT the Saxons. Or well, maybe them too (other line of breeding) ;) And it might also be that the Vikings also had left their DNA in the Anglo-Saxons, I know they did so in the Frisians :nod: So all in all, this history lesson does not learn us that much, just that he is portrayed as coming from a strong heritage.
Which is strange, for I myself do not see a Viking concerning himself with a garden :no: Very prejudice, I know – but the word Viking brings to my mind a strong warrior, and quite a brutish one for that matter. Nothing like Egbert… Except for the eyes :p No gateways to the soul this time…
Very pretty flowers and garden description. Lawrence is always great at that. :)Quote:
While the reader is wondering about this all, the countryside is being described :) All those wonderful flowers :hurray: But surrounded by shaggy wilderness… there is bound to be trouble! Especially as Egbert does not seem very capable of taming the garden…
Here we go.......tell me we are not getting into the phallic quality of the snake again....Quote:
Yes, I think the snakes are part of Eden, just like the Biblical paradise. No, the snakes are important, but not in snake form. We'll get to that.
:nono::rofl:
I will let Sapphire answer your post...asside from your suggestive snake remark...
She is probably snoozing away now half way round the world.
:lol: :lol: I wasn't even thinking of that. But now that you mention it, I will have to give it some thought. Actually I was thinking of the snake as introducing evil into the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
:rofl: Yes Madam :D I was sleeping like a baby at this time - 3:30 (am). As for the snake - I'll even remark on that http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/c...Smiley/hat.gif. As I see in the above post, it is you who goes into the dirty corners of the mind here :p :D (I went there too, don't worry ;) )Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I have read the word "common" in quite a lot of books, and the word in itself does not reek of socialism. Well, except for the fact that it is "common propriety". :crazy: :lol: What I mean to say is this: the word was around before socialism was :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Thank you for the insight in Lawrence's view on socialism/capitalism. I myself thought he migth be in favour of socialism, but with his amorism towards the primitive world I see how he did not really fall for it. I wonder what they had back in those days though... Survival of the fittest? They did stick in communities to stay strong against the primitive land around them, like Mr. Marshall has a small community there in Hampshire. I can see how you can read that in the word "common" :nod:
I guess that in the end everybody has to live somewhere, and the garden has to end at either a road, a brook or a common. In this case, it ends in a brook that has a common on its other edge.
I'll patiently wait another month for the answer/explination http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/c...trampoline.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, there are parts where he submits. But never fully, and that's the whole problem of it. For if he had taken a job, who knows how things whould have ended? Well, knowing Lawrence probably with an equally miserable Egbert, but it is a submission which he does not do. He IS a stubborn guy ;) Though Lawrence throws it all on breeding :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
You point the snake out as introducing evil into this world (as in Eden) - I think I know what part of the story you want to refer to... Is there a frog in the picture? We'll talk about it when we get there :nod: I've got quite some ideas :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
That's a literary way to put it - ramifications is a wonderful word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes - the North/South differences in England. They are really pointed out in this story, or at least how Lawrence looked at them. I do think winifred is born in the South though - she has got brown eyes. It is George Marshall who is said to be from the North - we do not know where his wife is from and where the children were born. He might have waited to mary untill he had some money, he seems that kind of man. And with Winifred having brown eyes, I think genetically this means his wife should have brown eyes too. But maybe they did not know this back then? Or I am mistaken - very possible, for I was never interested that much in biology in High School. Wiki says that "any combination can occur". So there goes my theory :lol: http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/c...wikismiley.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I think you might be right there. I just thought it a bit queer, as the Saxons were "raided" by the Normans - 1066 is a year even we learned in high school (and we live at the other side of the Channel :p). To put those two in the same pot is a bit awkward... but then again they were both people from the (far) past, and Lawrence tries to make clear that it is an old, old place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
As for the names - I'll get back to that. I did some name-researching :p I'll point it out at the text where people indeed get a name - notice how Egbert is a "he" until the 6th paragraph.
Agreed. I am still not sure whether the flowers are just flowers that grow in South England, or whether there is more behind it. Egbert does like his mulleins - a torchlike plant (flame + erect).Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Go ahead Janine, you are free to roll your eyes at this http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/c...ey/angel-1.gif :D
I'll be back...
More paragraphs of the chunck of the story posted by Janine
Children playing in the garden :D This should be a wonderful picture, and the first part of the sentence seems to indicate that. But then we get some negative adjectives: didactic, domineering. And the children speak in a daring manner. :nod: They seem indeed to be the ones in control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Still “his”, Egbert’s name is not named yet. And though we learn here that he’s disillusioned, we do not exactly know what in. In his children? In his own capabilities? In the garden?Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
“What was there to do but submit!” :rolleyes: I wish I knew the English translation of the Dutch word “lapswans” :biggrinjester:
This paragraph is here for one reason and one reason only: to make it very clear that the location is a savage, primitive one! And though I am bound to say this is dangerous, the writer tells us there’s peace in the savageness – while in continuation he tells about the shaggy gorse, marsh and snake-infested places. I connect “peace” with safety, but that is not what these things imply :nonod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Note also that “there was a vividness of flamy vegetation, of fierce seclusion amid the savage peace”. I take it the flamy vegetation indicate the flowers Egbert is so determined to have his garden covered with ;) So the garden lies in “fierce seclusion” amidst these primitive surroundings – this paragraph seems to say it is NOT a part of it.
Flamy… Now what were flames a symbol of in Lawrence-land? :blush: I really should know this! I think it stands for prosperity in the sexual life. Something like that. :flare: :p
We go back in time (still no name). The description of the place is more detailed now, with the names of the flowers so we can really get a picture of a flamy garden in our mind :D We learn it is an old place, it has been there for a thousand years. So it has been amidst these primitive commons (older) for quite a while – even before the Normans came :) But not before the Saxons came… So the garden might be created by Saxons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
“And yet he had re-created it”. This is a very important sentence in my eyes: it shows how Egbert is aware that he has changed something very, very old. He has mendled in something enduring. The sentence does NOT read “He had tried to re-create it” – no, he has done it, he has succeeded!
I am a bit confused about the word “re-created” though. For it seams to imply that he has created something which was already created once. So he has not made something new. Until now, I saw the flamy garden as something created by Egbert – the flames/flowers that is, not the garden. But if he re-created it, what was his example? Which other flamy garden did he copy?
Or do I misunderstand the word “re-create”, and does it simply indicate that he changed the (enduring) garden to his wishes?
Again the savageness versus the world of today. The cottage is old and forgotten, on the edge of the common – so almost swallowed into the common, into the savageness. Closer to the old days than the new. But the arrival of Egbert and his bride might make this different (“till”), for he “had come to fill it with flowers”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Is there anybody else here who was reminded of Shakespeare when reading “hamlets”? I had to grab a dictionary to figure out what it means – funny how one ordinary word can be so connected to a character. :rofl: “Yeomen” did not ring a bell in any way, though apparently that word is mentioned in Hamlet (Act5, Scene 2, line 36) :p Here is the explanation from The Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase & Fable:
Oh, and this is the paragraph where Egbert's name is finaly revealed :hurray:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebenezer Cobham Brewer
NAMES
Virgil mentioned Egbert and Marshall:
Janine mentioned Egbert:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
MarshallQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
This really fits Mr. Marshall: poor in the North (mabye even a servant), wealthy and influenceful in the South (in control).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary of Phrase and Fabel
I also noted something else, probably just a coincidence but it stuck in my head. :nod: Marshall = Marsh + all. So marshes all around ;)
Egbert
As Virgil said it is of Old English origin, and some googling learned me that it means as much as "bright sword" (beorht ecg). So there is brightness (flame) in his name, and an erect weapon :angel:
Apparently the name has been rarely used after the Norman conquest, but revived in the 19th century. So to me, this is rather a reference to the Saxons than the Vikings.
The meaning of the name must be important, as in the first version of the story, Egbert was called Evelyn. The origin of that name is a bit obscure, but from what I gather one of its meanings refers to Eve - not Adam, but Eve; the woman who was seduced by the snake and in turn seduced Adam. So the lead character had some feminine features in the early version! It is a commenly accepted male name though ;)
George
As George is Catholic, I searched for the meaning of St. George
St. George and the dragon! I should have thought of that before :) A well known legend :nod: Slaying a dragon (evil) comes pretty close to slaying a snake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary of Phrase and Fabel (I omitted some details)
So, the name George fits Mr. Marshall neatly: very English, Catholic, and a fighter. George is not a military man, but he has a controlling side to him which could be connected to the military (giving commands).
Strangely enough, the name in itself is of Greek origin and means "farmer". He does not strike me as a farmer at all - rather a business man :nod:
Winifred
Being her father's daughter and a Catholic I also researched St. Winifred in the Dictionary of Phrase and Fabel. It states that St Winifred is the patron saint of virgins, because she was beheaded by Prince Caradoc for refusing to marry him. This makes sense if you see the changes Winifred goes trough in this story, especially after her daughter is hurt and she turns to the Catholic churge again.
The name Winifred in itself means "holy, blessed reconciliation; joy and peace". That sounds like the woman Egbert fell in love with :)
the other Marshall sisters
The name Priscilla has no saint connection. Her name means as much as "Ancient, Venerable". I do not know how to connect this to her living in a shed with white-blue check curtains :p.
Magdalen means "Woman from Magdala", and the most famous woman to be known as such is Mary Magdalen. In the bible, Mary Magdalen is a follower of Jezus, probably a prostitute. We find another reference to her later on in the story.
I think the sisters names are just names - but then again maybe all names are ;) When I want to look into something, find a deeper meaning, I usually succeed :rofl: No matter how I get there ;)
If the sisters names have no meaning, why are they named at all? The mother is not...
Looking into the names raises more questions than answers, does it not? :lol:
Amazing Sapphire; wish I wasn't going out soon so I could answer some of your questions. I think I know a few answers or can suggest things to you. Anyway, you are a real Lawrence detective....I think your ideas are very insightful. About the names, most likely you are correct or close. Winifred was a name that poppped up often in Lawrence's work. He must have had a connection in-mind. I certainly didn't pick up on the original name for Egbert being Evelyn, indicating Eve. That's a very interesting observance. Not sure if it's correct but it certainly does make for an interesting thought and connection to the Garden of Eden theory. Of course, we can't know all is certain since our Lawrence ghost has not yet shown up on the scene. Would it not be incredible if suddenly someone with the user name of Lawrence, showed up on this thread only! :lol:
More later to comment on....three posts by you....good work...and great information! I will have to read it a second time. You totally have me cativated. Glad you are getting deeply into the story. I like to see that sort of interest. Thanks for writing so much and researching so much, as well. It's very helpful and insightful.
Yes, I guess you're right. It's at the edge of their property. Perhaps it's only significance is that it's wild land rather than cultivated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
I think it's a process toward submission for Egbert. And yes Lawrence was stubborn and never submitted. :DQuote:
Yes, there are parts where he submits. But never fully, and that's the whole problem of it. For if he had taken a job, who knows how things whould have ended? Well, knowing Lawrence probably with an equally miserable Egbert, but it is a submission which he does not do. He IS a stubborn guy ;) Though Lawrence throws it all on breeding :p
Thanks. :)Quote:
That's a literary way to put it - ramifications is a wonderful word.
I don't think Lawrence was thinking genetics. I think the nordic blue eyes suggest a certain idealism while the brown symbolize common and practical.Quote:
Yes - the North/South differences in England. They are really pointed out in this story, or at least how Lawrence looked at them. I do think winifred is born in the South though - she has got brown eyes. It is George Marshall who is said to be from the North - we do not know where his wife is from and where the children were born. He might have waited to mary untill he had some money, he seems that kind of man. And with Winifred having brown eyes, I think genetically this means his wife should have brown eyes too. But maybe they did not know this back then? Or I am mistaken - very possible, for I was never interested that much in biology in High School. Wiki says that "any combination can occur". So there goes my theory :lol: http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/c...wikismiley.gif
Yes, but the Normans ultimately won and established the South as more continental as opposed to the North as more nordic/saxon.Quote:
I think you might be right there. I just thought it a bit queer, as the Saxons were "raided" by the Normans - 1066 is a year even we learned in high school (and we live at the other side of the Channel :p). To put those two in the same pot is a bit awkward... but then again they were both people from the (far) past, and Lawrence tries to make clear that it is an old, old place.
As for the names - I'll get back to that. I did some name-researching :p I'll point it out at the text where people indeed get a name - notice how Egbert is a "he" until the 6th paragraph
:lol: Yes, flame comes up a few times. And the flowers are symbolic as the ideal being as in other Lawrence stories.Quote:
Agreed. I am still not sure whether the flowers are just flowers that grow in South England, or whether there is more behind it. Egbert does like his mulleins - a torchlike plant (flame + erect).
Go ahead Janine, you are free to roll your eyes at this http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/c...ey/angel-1.gif :D
Where does the story start? Is it at the beginning of the marriagfe or is it mid way and then Lawrence backtracks to the early marriage? That's sort of ambigous. I think that "what to do but submit" is coming from later in the time sequence of the story. He's already disillusioned here and ready to submit.Quote:
Still “his”, Egbert’s name is not named yet. And though we learn here that he’s disillusioned, we do not exactly know what in. In his children? In his own capabilities? In the garden?
“What was there to do but submit!” :rolleyes: I wish I knew the English translation of the Dutch word “lapswans” :biggrinjester:
Agreed. The snakes are there but there is peace with the savage beasts, edenic.Quote:
This paragraph is here for one reason and one reason only: to make it very clear that the location is a savage, primitive one! And though I am bound to say this is dangerous, the writer tells us there’s peace in the savageness – while in continuation he tells about the shaggy gorse, marsh and snake-infested places. I connect “peace” with safety, but that is not what these things imply :nonod:
Yes, you're right in your blushing. That's what Lawrence is suggesting. And we get more of it later which I'm sure will be pointed out.Quote:
Note also that “there was a vividness of flamy vegetation, of fierce seclusion amid the savage peace”. I take it the flamy vegetation indicate the flowers Egbert is so determined to have his garden covered with ;) So the garden lies in “fierce seclusion” amidst these primitive surroundings – this paragraph seems to say it is NOT a part of it.
Flamy… Now what were flames a symbol of in Lawrence-land? :blush: I really should know this! I think it stands for prosperity in the sexual life. Something like that. :flare: :p
Not sure what to make of "re-create" either. Perhaps Janine can help here.Quote:
We go back in time (still no name). The description of the place is more detailed now, with the names of the flowers so we can really get a picture of a flamy garden in our mind :D We learn it is an old place, it has been there for a thousand years. So it has been amidst these primitive commons (older) for quite a while – even before the Normans came :) But not before the Saxons came… So the garden might be created by Saxons.
“And yet he had re-created it”. This is a very important sentence in my eyes: it shows how Egbert is aware that he has changed something very, very old. He has mendled in something enduring. The sentence does NOT read “He had tried to re-create it” – no, he has done it, he has succeeded!
I am a bit confused about the word “re-created” though. For it seams to imply that he has created something which was already created once. So he has not made something new. Until now, I saw the flamy garden as something created by Egbert – the flames/flowers that is, not the garden. But if he re-created it, what was his example? Which other flamy garden did he copy?
It does seem to have some special significance. I'm not sure either.Quote:
Or do I misunderstand the word “re-create”, and does it simply indicate that he changed the (enduring) garden to his wishes?
No I don't think it refers to the Shakespeare play. It means small village and very rural. It's a common English word you may not have come across yet.Quote:
Again the savageness versus the world of today. The cottage is old and forgotten, on the edge of the common – so almost swallowed into the common, into the savageness. Closer to the old days than the new. But the arrival of Egbert and his bride might make this different (“till”), for he “had come to fill it with flowers”.
Is there anybody else here who was reminded of Shakespeare when reading “hamlets”? I had to grab a dictionary to figure out what it means – funny how one ordinary word can be so connected to a character. :rofl: “Yeomen” did not ring a bell in any way, though apparently that word is mentioned in Hamlet (Act5, Scene 2, line 36) :p Here is the explanation from The Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase & Fable:
Quote:
ham·let (ham′lit)
noun
a very small village
Origin: ME hamelet < OFr (Anglo-Fr hamelete), dim. of hamel (Fr hameau), dim. of LowG hamm, enclosed area, akin to OE: for IE base see hem
Good pick up Janine. I hadn't realized it.Quote:
Janine mentioned Egbert:
Oh yes, marsh. The setting is in a marshy place, isn't it?Quote:
Marshall
This really fits Mr. Marshall: poor in the North (mabye even a servant), wealthy and influenceful in the South (in control).
I also noted something else, probably just a coincidence but it stuck in my head. :nod: Marshall = Marsh + all. So marshes all around ;)
:lol: Yep! I'm sure Lawrence liked that.Quote:
Egbert
As Virgil said it is of Old English origin, and some googling learned me that it means as much as "bright sword" (beorht ecg). So there is brightness (flame) in his name, and an erect weapon :angel:
Egbert is a very odd name to give a 20th century character. Surely Lawrence is picking it for a purpose. Thank God he changed his mind from Evelyn. :sick:Quote:
Apparently the name has been rarely used after the Norman conquest, but revived in the 19th century. So to me, this is rather a reference to the Saxons than the Vikings.
The meaning of the name must be important, as in the first version of the story, Egbert was called Evelyn. The origin of that name is a bit obscure, but from what I gather one of its meanings refers to Eve - not Adam, but Eve; the woman who was seduced by the snake and in turn seduced Adam. So the lead character had some feminine features in the early version! It is a commenly accepted male name though ;)
Is his first name George? I have Godfrey in my edition:Quote:
George
As George is Catholic, I searched for the meaning of St. George
May I ask what you guys think is the significance of the Roman Catholicism? It's very prominant in the story and it was not that common in England. Mostly Anglican protestants there and Lawrence grew up protestant. I don't know what to make of it but I do think it has significance, especially since Christian motifs run through the story. If this story was written in 1915, that would be before he went to live in Italy and encountered Catholics there. He came to think highly of Catholicism (not for any theological reasons but because i think he liked the mediterranian way of life) but that would be after he wrote this story. And i don't think he portrays the Catholicism in a positive way. So I'm not sure what he's saying with it.Quote:
Godfrey Marshall, her father, was at first perfectly pleased with the
ménage down at Crockham Cottage. He thought Egbert was wonderful, the
many things he accomplished, and he was gratified by the glow of physical
passion between the two young people.
Interesting post Virgil - I have to go now, so I can not answer thoroughly.
By this evening I'll at least have an answer to your last question (for I have 3 possible reasons in mind already) :D
EDIT (later this day):
:lol: I meant Egbert was stubborn, but I see what you mean :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Not genetics, just symbolism - got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
:confused: or well, a little bit. I understand the history, but Egbert is the one with Viking eyes - if Norman, indeed from the South. You say he has "nordic" eyes, which would mean North... But then again, it would be symbolism and not genetics :D. And I bet there were enough Saxons with blue eyes :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
All flowers? Does this mean one can say that Egbert was trying to turn himself into an (more) ideal being by planting a flowery garden? Himself and his wife - everybody who lived there...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
If that is the case, it is a bit strange: he loves the old place, but he creates something new with the flamy flowers. Flowers which are not enduring. So apparently, enduring is not ideal.
Or flowers are like the phoenix, which is printed on the cover of my "England, My England" bundle: they disappear and reappear according to the seasons. Enduring in a certain way...
As you can see, I am a bit torn on this point :lol: Didn't Lawrence also like to think both ways?
I agree. But while he sighs "what to do but submit", he hasn't submitted to the factor of "Work" yet. So he might submit in the upbringing of his children, but not yet in earning money. And after he sighs this way, there is the time when he behaves like Ishmael which is not submitting either. In the end, in joining the war, he does submit though. So maybe, it is not only a statement of what is happening, but also of things to come? He failed at being Ishmael and gave in eventually - after 11 years of marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I do not doubt it :smilielol5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
The name looked so familiar to me, and I figured out why :hurray: A well known coffee brand over here is "Douwe Egberts". So I have been looking at the name Egbert(s) all my life - that's why it did not seem that odd a name to me :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
:eek: I was talking about Albert instead of Alfred in the discussion of the story "the wintry Peacock" and now I go for George instead of Godfrey :banghead: I do not know how I could read that word wrong over and over! I thought it was George, looked back to check and sure enough it said George in my eyes. But now I see it is Godfrey! There are gremlins at work here - I am sure! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Lets look into Godfrey then. :nod: This name also has, quite obvious, religious connotattions. It is of Old German origin and means "God-peace" and can even be interpreted as "free man in service of god". It was a popular name among crusaders (medieval times). This is probably not only for its meaning, but also because of that famous crusader, Godfrey of Bouillon - a Frankish knight who was one of the leaders of the first crusade, and the first ruler in Jerusalem. There are some Saints with the surname Godfrey, and the St Godfrey I found was somebody who took care of the poor and the sick - don't all saints? It surely fits Mr Marshall though, with his Roman Catholic religion, love for giving money away and will to "fix" Joyce.
Thank you for pointing this out. It did not surprise me that much, as I had the Dutch religious life in my mind: Catholics in the South, Protestants in the North and a Protestant Queen. As I'm from the North, I see the Netherlands as a Protestant country (calvinism), but the further South you go the more Catholics you'll find and when you look at the Netherlands as a whole the percentages are almost the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
But that is current times and an other country :p I have tried to find statistics about Catholics in England around 1915, but I could not find exactly what I was looking for. You say that there are mostly Anglican protestants in England, but the Church of England (Anglican) is a special one. From what I gather, it is a mix of the Catholic and Protestant faith, with local differences regarding how much Catholicism and Protestantism. :crazy: Religion is such a hard thing to put your finger on!
All in all, I think I can make 3 points in favour of Lawrence using the Roman Catholic faith in this story.
1. Real Life
The Marshall family is based on the Meynell family, which was Roman Catholic. About the mother of the family, the poet/writer Alice Meynell (formerly Thompson), I found the following:
So the mother was definitely Catholic, and on wikipedia we read that the father was too:Quote:
Originally Posted by Biography Alice
So Lawrence had been in contact with the Roman Catholic Church before he moved to Italy - and it might well be that his first thorough encounter with it was while living in a cottage of the Meynell family.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
2. Catholism in England/UK
Though Anglicism is the leading church of England, Catholism has always stood next to it. Especially with the Roman Catholic Ireland just around the corner. I read in a Google Book about religion in the UK in the 20th century (by Callum G Brown), that the Roman Catholic Church was strongest in the north-west, closest to the ports of Irish disembarkation, and in London. The same book also says that Roman Catholic diocesan hierarchies were re-established in England and Wales in 1850 following an influx of Irish Catholics fleeing the Great Irish Famine. And due to this Irish migration, Catholism had an uprise at the beginning of the 20th century. The one statistic I found, states that in 1915 around 5% of the English were Catholic. This is little if the other 95% was protestant, but I have found no statistics which say anything about that - very frustrating :p. If 5% was Catholic though, it is not that strange a thing to write about a catholic character.
3. Symbolism of (using) this religionQuote:
Originally Posted by wiki
As we have pointed out, Lawrence puts great importance on the primitiveness (gr?) of the place. It is the same as when the Saxons came, before the Romans came. Before the Roman Catholics came. England might be Anglician now, but it started all with the first Christian religion: Roman Catholicism. Though the Church of England traces its steps back towards 600 AD, the church was under papal reign untill 1543. So I am bound to say it was Roman Catholic back then. But in 1543 king Henry the VIII wanted a divorce so the whole country changed religion :rofl: Later on, more and more protestant influences came into the church.
It is the religion from the Middle Ages - it is the oldest Christian religion in England, the one that overtook the pagans. From South to North. With the Marshall family being Roman Catholic, one might say that they're doing it again by taking over the Hampshire-land Mr. Marshall has bought.
Apart from its historic value, it is also a religion in which hierarchy is quite important. It is a religion which (protestants) look at as domineering - you do not read the script, you just do as the priest tells you. I am not saying this is the case (or that this wasn't the case with protestant preachers), but it might be how Lawrence looked at it in those days. Mr Marshall rules his family as the Roman Catholic faith ruled him.
Next to this, there is the rich tradition of symbolism within the Roman Catholic Church. Think for example of all the saints and their symbols. Much of the Christian symbolism, is not just Christian but mainly Roman Catholic - the churches are filled with it. And think of the Maria-worship, especially Maria as Mater Dolorosa (later on in this story).
I do not know how much of this is still apparent in the Church of England. I think Lawrence could have used the same symbolism if the Marhall family was of a different religion, as the symbols are embedded in the history of arts. But this way, he stays closer to the core.
Somehow I am always at work when I am posting, so I don't have time to read all of the comments, but I am halfway through the story so I'll just offer some thoughts. Keep in mind I got to the point where Lawrence is explaining that the great war is starting and Lawrence is not fit for it anymore than a rose can be aggressive in and of it's rosiness...
Again, one of my favorite things about Lawrence is how he is able to communicate the relationship between men and women and how they work psychologically, emotionally - and to ring the ever present gong on Lawrence discussions - yes even sexually. It's like he ties all of these together. What interests me the most so far is how Winifred even before Joyce got injured, started transferring her faith in Egbert over to her father - but it seems like she never viewed (up til now that is) Egbert as more than a youthful and lustful plaything - a husband. She married him knowing who he was and comes to resent the fact that he won't work for work's sake. For the sake of the story, it seems like we're supposed to be inclined to take Winifred as an antagonistic character (antagonistic may be a strong word) and that Egbert is the story's hero. But I've yet to see how the whole thing turns out.
Reading into the Catholic theme is important, but it's kind of disruptive for me. Winifred dives into this almost it seems like she's clinging to a bigger authority. She looked to her father for authority and stability, and not her husband, but it's interesting that she doesn't lean then on God the FATHER but rather the institution of the Church.
From a Christian, non-Catholic perspective though it is odd to see how she cuts herself emotionally and bodily from her husband, feeling that just by looking at him that she is "damned"...because the husband and the wife are supposed to be a gift one unto another - but that's just a side note perspective. She's punishing Egbert and they're becoming strangers.
Guess my thoughts are pretty incomplete because I still have to finish...just wanted to let you know my light bulb is on over here. Great story Janine! Glad to get back to Lawrence.
Egbert would be associated with the Vikings/Saxons who lost to the Normans from the south.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
No not turning into a flower. It's Lawrence's way of bringing flowers into the story. Plus it creates the Eden.Quote:
All flowers? Does this mean one can say that Egbert was trying to turn himself into an (more) ideal being by planting a flowery garden? Himself and his wife - everybody who lived there...
Great point about the flamy flowers being like the phoenix. I don't know if by 1915 Lawrence had come to associate with the phoenix yet, but it's here in the flaming flowers.Quote:
If that is the case, it is a bit strange: he loves the old place, but he creates something new with the flamy flowers. Flowers which are not enduring. So apparently, enduring is not ideal.
Or flowers are like the phoenix, which is printed on the cover of my "England, My England" bundle: they disappear and reappear according to the seasons. Enduring in a certain way...
:p I think we can get overly wrapped up in symbols. First priority is the story. :)Quote:
As you can see, I am a bit torn on this point :lol: Didn't Lawrence also like to think both ways?
Yes, I agree with all that.Quote:
I agree. But while he sighs "what to do but submit", he hasn't submitted to the factor of "Work" yet. So he might submit in the upbringing of his children, but not yet in earning money. And after he sighs this way, there is the time when he behaves like Ishmael which is not submitting either. In the end, in joining the war, he does submit though. So maybe, it is not only a statement of what is happening, but also of things to come? He failed at being Ishmael and gave in eventually - after 11 years of marriage.
He is God-like in the story. The name fits, and Frankish is close to the Normans. :eek:Quote:
Lets look into Godfrey then. :nod: This name also has, quite obvious, religious connotattions. It is of Old German origin and means "God-peace" and can even be interpreted as "free man in service of god". It was a popular name among crusaders (medieval times). This is probably not only for its meaning, but also because of that famous crusader, Godfrey of Bouillon - a Frankish knight who was one of the leaders of the first crusade, and the first ruler in Jerusalem. There are some Saints with the surname Godfrey, and the St Godfrey I found was somebody who took care of the poor and the sick - don't all saints? It surely fits Mr Marshall though, with his Roman Catholic religion, love for giving money away and will to "fix" Joyce.
I didn't realize Holland was half Catholic. I thought it was all Protestant. That's interesting to know. :)Quote:
Thank you for pointing this out. It did not surprise me that much, as I had the Dutch religious life in my mind: Catholics in the South, Protestants in the North and a Protestant Queen. As I'm from the North, I see the Netherlands as a Protestant country (calvinism), but the further South you go the more Catholics you'll find and when you look at the Netherlands as a whole the percentages are almost the same.
Well, Anglican is the closest to Catholicism of all the Protestant denominations. In fact high Church Anglican is theologically indistinguishable from Catholicism; the only difference is the higharchy to the Pope. All three of your points are excellent by the way.Quote:
But that is current times and an other country :p I have tried to find statistics about Catholics in England around 1915, but I could not find exactly what I was looking for. You say that there are mostly Anglican protestants in England, but the Church of England (Anglican) is a special one. From what I gather, it is a mix of the Catholic and Protestant faith, with local differences regarding how much Catholicism and Protestantism. :crazy: Religion is such a hard thing to put your finger on!
All in all, I think I can make 3 points in favour of Lawrence using the Roman Catholic faith in this story.
I didn't realize that the family was modeled after a real life one. Did Janine provide that background earlier and I missed it? Perhaps that's a hole in my knowledge of Lawrence's biography. I had not thought he had come in contact with Catholicism until he went to Italy. I don't recall him mentioning it in any story prior to his travels abroad.Quote:
1. Real Life
The Marshall family is based on the Meynell family, which was Roman Catholic. About the mother of the family, the poet/writer Alice Meynell (formerly Thompson), I found the following:
So the mother was definitely Catholic, and on wikipedia we read that the father was too:
So Lawrence had been in contact with the Roman Catholic Church before he moved to Italy - and it might well be that his first thorough encounter with it was while living in a cottage of the Meynell family.
Yes, and since the middle of the 19th century there has been a lot of conversion from Anglican to Catholicism in England, and it continues today.Quote:
2. Catholism in England/UK
Though Anglicism is the leading church of England, Catholism has always stood next to it. Especially with the Roman Catholic Ireland just around the corner. I read in a Google Book about religion in the UK in the 20th century (by Callum G Brown), that the Roman Catholic Church was strongest in the north-west, closest to the ports of Irish disembarkation, and in London. The same book also says that Roman Catholic diocesan hierarchies were re-established in England and Wales in 1850 following an influx of Irish Catholics fleeing the Great Irish Famine. And due to this Irish migration, Catholism had an uprise at the beginning of the 20th century. The one statistic I found, states that in 1915 around 5% of the English were Catholic. This is little if the other 95% was protestant, but I have found no statistics which say anything about that - very frustrating :p. If 5% was Catholic though, it is not that strange a thing to write about a catholic character.
I think this is right. I think it suggests the traditions and people from the south converting from the Viking paganism. Egbert is not suggestive of Protestanism but of a pre-Christian paganism.Quote:
3. Symbolism of (using) this religion
As we have pointed out, Lawrence puts great importance on the primitiveness (gr?) of the place. It is the same as when the Saxons came, before the Romans came. Before the Roman Catholics came. England might be Anglician now, but it started all with the first Christian religion: Roman Catholicism. Though the Church of England traces its steps back towards 600 AD, the church was under papal reign untill 1543. So I am bound to say it was Roman Catholic back then. But in 1543 king Henry the VIII wanted a divorce so the whole country changed religion :rofl: Later on, more and more protestant influences came into the church.
It is the religion from the Middle Ages - it is the oldest Christian religion in England, the one that overtook the pagans. From South to North. With the Marshall family being Roman Catholic, one might say that they're doing it again by taking over the Hampshire-land Mr. Marshall has bought.
Apart from its historic value, it is also a religion in which hierarchy is quite important. It is a religion which (protestants) look at as domineering - you do not read the script, you just do as the priest tells you. I am not saying this is the case (or that this wasn't the case with protestant preachers), but it might be how Lawrence looked at it in those days. Mr Marshall rules his family as the Roman Catholic faith ruled him.
Next to this, there is the rich tradition of symbolism within the Roman Catholic Church. Think for example of all the saints and their symbols. Much of the Christian symbolism, is not just Christian but mainly Roman Catholic - the churches are filled with it. And think of the Maria-worship, especially Maria as Mater Dolorosa (later on in this story).
I guess he could have, but I think Lawrence's point is to show that the old Germanic/Viking paganism was a sort of Eden and disolved by the new Christianity that came into England. Remember, this story is called "England, My England" and i think the story is a sort of analogous microcosm of English history as Lawrence sees it.Quote:
I do not know how much of this is still apparent in the Church of England. I think Lawrence could have used the same symbolism if the Marhall family was of a different religion, as the symbols are embedded in the history of arts. But this way, he stays closer to the core.
No problem Gracie. You're almost done. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by grace86
He really is great at that. I don't think there is anyone better.Quote:
Again, one of my favorite things about Lawrence is how he is able to communicate the relationship between men and women and how they work psychologically, emotionally - and to ring the ever present gong on Lawrence discussions - yes even sexually. It's like he ties all of these together.
Yes, we'll get to how the shift in power goes to Winifred's father. Janine has a very methodical way of going through the story. Only sections at a time. :lol:Quote:
What interests me the most so far is how Winifred even before Joyce got injured, started transferring her faith in Egbert over to her father - but it seems like she never viewed (up til now that is) Egbert as more than a youthful and lustful plaything - a husband. She married him knowing who he was and comes to resent the fact that he won't work for work's sake. For the sake of the story, it seems like we're supposed to be inclined to take Winifred as an antagonistic character (antagonistic may be a strong word) and that Egbert is the story's hero. But I've yet to see how the whole thing turns out.
Yes, I think we're distracted with the Catholicism. I think Lawrence is after Christianity in general and he picks Catholicism for historical purposes because it was the first Christianity on England.Quote:
Reading into the Catholic theme is important, but it's kind of disruptive for me. Winifred dives into this almost it seems like she's clinging to a bigger authority. She looked to her father for authority and stability, and not her husband, but it's interesting that she doesn't lean then on God the FATHER but rather the institution of the Church.
People evolve in marriages. It's not always ideal. :wink5:Quote:
From a Christian, non-Catholic perspective though it is odd to see how she cuts herself emotionally and bodily from her husband, feeling that just by looking at him that she is "damned"...because the husband and the wife are supposed to be a gift one unto another - but that's just a side note perspective. She's punishing Egbert and they're becoming strangers.
You're almost done. Finish up and reply to our comments. :)Quote:
Guess my thoughts are pretty incomplete because I still have to finish...just wanted to let you know my light bulb is on over here. Great story Janine! Glad to get back to Lawrence.
Thanks Virgil, I'll get right on that!! Though...you guys can be quite intimidating...writing commentary that's novel size for a short story!! ;) I got some catching up to do!
Grace86
I can imagine it is a bit intimidating - if you have ideas to keep it more brief, I hold myself recommended. I write commentary as some sort of stream of consciousness :lol: And when 3 posts gets merged into one it does start to look like a novel :nod: I myself try to make clear (sub)titles within my posts to keep it all readable... Do let me know whether this is the case or not :)
I am glad you're joining in :hurray:
I totally agree on what you have to say about Lawrence writing abilities regarding the relationship between men and women.
Are you sure about that last statement? For in the part we're discussing now, we find the line "Of course in time he would make money in these things". I'm not sure whether this is something which Winifred thought to happen when she married him, or whether this is something which Egbert also thought he was going to do. It is not quite clear who says it. I think it is more a general saying: what everybody expected to happen, until Egbert got obstinate :p. And the more Winifred trusts on her dad, the less inclined Egbert is to make an effort :banghead:Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace86
She already has that strong father figure in her life. Maybe God as a Father would colide with that? So she falls for the institution, the hierarchy, the dominance - the "being told what to do".Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace86
Maybe for the theme of the story... but the narrator tries just as hard to explain Egbert point of view as he tries to explain Winifred. Surely they become each others opponents, but both persons are described in a sympathic manner. There's judgement on Winifred's behaviour, but so is there on Egbert's. I am not sure who the hero is :lol: To me it is rather a myth which tries to explain something, than a story about morals...Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace86
@Virgil
Thank you for your thorough answer to my post: I have nothing more to add :D. Well, to this part that is :smilielol5: I especially like your idea of the story being
As for the background information: I mentioned it in this post: #3165 under the header "Relation to real life". This story follows real life creepingly close... I can imagine the Meynells weren't happy about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Commentary on the last part of the chunck of text Janine posted in post #3173
So the garden is his project, but NOT the house – no alternations there :nonod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
I wonder whether there is a little mistake in the last sentence: “on one side the angle”. Shouldn’t that be “on one side of the angle”? Though even this is an odd way to put it, I can see this: Egbert on one side of the chimney, Winifred on a side 90 degrees from his – nice and cosy ;)
He had loved the house/place, and probably also Winifred – but what he says/thinks here is “want”. So it is more important to possess the girl than the house? Well, the house came with the girl … at least he did not take the girl for her house!Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Winifred is described in wonderful adjectives. She’s compared to a flame and to blossoming, red-flowered bush – so flames and flowers again. Notice the “too” and “seemed” when she is connected to the old England. I think the “too” means both Winifred and the cottage, not both Winifred and Egbert. For though the cottage is firmly connected to old England, Egbert has only been connected to Vikings – and as far as I know they’re from Scandinavia :p. Later in the paragraph his nose is said to be from an “old country family” though :crazy: But this is later…
Winifred is the brown-eyed, South, robust and energic (but quiescence) girl while Egbert is the fair (though dark now), agile, archer-like boy. When I read this, he seemed to me the more dreamy one :D He was daydreaming at the moment, wasn’t he? :p
“They were a beautiful couple”. I can not decide whether this is purely on the outside (aesthetic), or also in a more compatible way. Egbert’s description is mainly in his appearance, but Winifred’s is also her character, or at least the impression she gives: “slow grace of energy”, “crude, passionate quiescence”.
Again, a very detailed description of the place. So detailed, that I thought I could make a map. I thought wrong – I miss indications of distances and directions to really figure it out. Here’s what I think it might have looked like, but I am not sure at all of the location of Crockham Cottage. I made it into a link, as a picture in here would have exploded the thread :p {link} I hope it fits a bit with your ideas of the place: it was hard to puzzle it together. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Story
Note how Mr. Marshall’s commodious house stands near a church. How Priscilla lives in a shed. How Magdalen has a new cottage near the vegetable garden. How Winifred’s cottage is so primitive.
Does anybody have an idea what the houses say about Priscilla and Magdalen? I can place Mr. Marshall’s commodious house, and Winifred’s primitive one – but why do we learn what kind of house the other sisters have. It has to say something about their personality, does it not? Why else would Lawrence point it out… maybe just to give us a feel for the surroundings: those cottages weren’t as dark (long window’s in Prissy’s) and primitive as Winifred’s?
Also, this is the paragraph where we’re told that Mr Marshall came from the north poor. So he made his fortune in the south.
Here is stated very clearly that it is Winifred’s own house, as also in the first sentence of the previous paragraph. But already in the next sentence, we are reminded of the fact that it is her father who bought it (as in the previous paragraph) – and gave it to her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Then it is mentioned that both were delighted. Egbert had two reasons to be happy: he loved the place, and he got the woman he wanted – because of the house given to them, they could marry. For I do not know a lot about the finances in those days, but 150 pounds a year does not sound like enough to live from with 2 people :frown5:.
The last line, I am not sure who says/thinks that. Until now, everything is told as Egbert could look at it. But that last sentence does not sound like him. Did he really had the intention, early on in the marriage, to make money by his hobbies? It sounds more like something the Marshalls would have thought/said and Egbert failed to deny.
Morris-dances… According to the commentary “Lawrence, War and Nation” this hobby of Egbert was added in the 1922 version – or at least this version points it out more clearly. Apparently, it is a type of folk-art: dance is art and the Morris-dances are folk-dances. Funny fact: Lawrence was asked once to enlist into a sword-dance team :rofl: :hurray: The folk-dances had a revival in England in those days, just after/during the war. People searched for their identity, and this was one “answer”.
I only ever heard of Morris-dances once before in this story: they’re made fun of in Terry Pratchet’s books :smilielol5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary of Phrase and Fabel
Notice further how the "common" is Winifreds! That blows the whole theory away which we had about that word :rofl:
Fantastic! Don't think I am not here. I have read every word and enjoyed all the ideas. Don't get overwhelmed Grace. You always add insightful things to the story. I have purposely held back for this first part to let you all get talking without too much confusion. But my presense is very much here. I am enjoying all the commentary and Sapphire I really appreciate all your intense research. You may write a book but at least you don't speak idly and you think before you make a comment. Good job all!
This is rather hysterical - I have been hunting for the new poster Story....now I see you are merely quoting from the story! :lol: silly me ROFLOL
You're welcome, and Sapphire, you are just too charming. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
How lazy of me not to have read back. I apologize. :blush: That was excellent research Sapphire and very pertinent and enlightening to the story.Quote:
That is oddly written. I wonder myself.Quote:
I wonder whether there is a little mistake in the last sentence: “on one side the angle”. Shouldn’t that be “on one side of the angle”? Though even this is an odd way to put it, I can see this: Egbert on one side of the chimney, Winifred on a side 90 degrees from his – nice and cosy ;)
Yes, flame and old England are very important. Also, look at this:Quote:
He had loved the house/place, and probably also Winifred – but what he says/thinks here is “want”. So it is more important to possess the girl than the house? Well, the house came with the girl … at least he did not take the girl for her house!
Winifred is described in wonderful adjectives. She’s compared to a flame and to blossoming, red-flowered bush – so flames and flowers again. Notice the “too” and “seemed” when she is connected to the old England. I think the “too” means both Winifred and the cottage, not both Winifred and Egbert. For though the cottage is firmly connected to old England, Egbert has only been connected to Vikings – and as far as I know they’re from Scandinavia :p. Later in the paragraph his nose is said to be from an “old country family” though :crazy: But this is later…
Notice how he repeats "he." "And he, he was tall and slim..." This repetition of words happens so frequently throughout the story. I'll point it out as we go along. It's all over the place and it's not necessarilly a writing quirk for Lawrence. He doesn't do this elsewhere, at least not much. And this was rewritten in 1922 (I think you said) and Lawrnce had become a fine stylist by then. This repetition is not something that makes the prose richer; actually it's usually frowned upon. But given that Lawrence does this so frequently throughout the story, I have to think he's trying to make a point with it. Notice too that the title, "England, My England" repeats a word. Just notice this as we go forward.Quote:
And he, he was tall and slim and agile, like an English archer with his long supple legs and fine movements.
Winifred is the brown-eyed, South, robust and energic (but quiescence) girl while Egbert is the fair (though dark now), agile, archer-like boy. When I read this, he seemed to me the more dreamy one :D He was daydreaming at the moment, wasn’t he? :p
“They were a beautiful couple”. I can not decide whether this is purely on the outside (aesthetic), or also in a more compatible way. Egbert’s description is mainly in his appearance, but Winifred’s is also her character, or at least the impression she gives: “slow grace of energy”, “crude, passionate quiescence”.
Ha! What a great sketch. I love it. :DQuote:
Again, a very detailed description of the place. So detailed, that I thought I could make a map. I thought wrong – I miss indications of distances and directions to really figure it out. Here’s what I think it might have looked like, but I am not sure at all of the location of Crockham Cottage. I made it into a link, as a picture in here would have exploded the thread :p {link} I hope it fits a bit with your ideas of the place: it was hard to puzzle it together. :D
I would never have really picked that up without your sketch. :)Quote:
Note how Mr. Marshall’s commodious house stands near a church. How Priscilla lives in a shed. How Magdalen has a new cottage near the vegetable garden. How Winifred’s cottage is so primitive.
I think those are just incidental details to provide verisimiltude. Perhaps only Godfrey's house next to the church has significance. I bet Lawrence had a particular real life place in mind and noted the details.Quote:
Does anybody have an idea what the houses say about Priscilla and Magdalen? I can place Mr. Marshall’s commodious house, and Winifred’s primitive one – but why do we learn what kind of house the other sisters have. It has to say something about their personality, does it not? Why else would Lawrence point it out… maybe just to give us a feel for the surroundings: those cottages weren’t as dark (long window’s in Prissy’s) and primitive as Winifred’s?
Rich daddy providses everything. :DQuote:
Here is stated very clearly that it is Winifred’s own house, as also in the first sentence of the previous paragraph. But already in the next sentence, we are reminded of the fact that it is her father who bought it (as in the previous paragraph) – and gave it to her.
Actually I think that's not bad. I think it would be considered better than average.Quote:
Then it is mentioned that both were delighted. Egbert had two reasons to be happy: he loved the place, and he got the woman he wanted – because of the house given to them, they could marry. For I do not know a lot about the finances in those days, but 150 pounds a year does not sound like enough to live from with 2 people :frown5:.
I took that as a common thought throughout the family. Not sure if he really believed it, but that's how he protrayed it to the family.Quote:
The last line, I am not sure who says/thinks that. Until now, everything is told as Egbert could look at it. But that last sentence does not sound like him. Did he really had the intention, early on in the marriage, to make money by his hobbies? It sounds more like something the Marshalls would have thought/said and Egbert failed to deny.
I had never heard of them either. thanks. Here's a youtube video of morris dancing:Quote:
I only ever heard of Morris-dances once before in this story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao.
well, that's what makes me wonder if I'm missing some nuance with the notion of commons. But we'll never know. :)Quote:
Notice further how the "common" is Winifreds! That blows the whole theory away which we had about that word :rofl:
Sapphire, I love your little map. When we were reading "Women in Love" on this forum I came up with a map of the area...and actual place Lawrence fashioned the story from. No doubt Virgil is right in saying that most likely this place was a real location to Lawrence. It's amazing how well you depicted it in your sketch. Now I can picture it better. Thanks so much for making that extra effort.
You guys are great. I have been reading along and need to reread the first part in order to apply your interpretations to the text. Interesting discussion so far.
:eek: Friday the 13th - everybody be aware! :p
@Janine
I thought you would be reading along :) It is a lot to absorb, isn't it? I have the luxery that I can read the posts in the morning and then answer in the late-midday. :D There are some benefits in different timezones :smilielol5:
I wonder whether you'd be searching for Lawrence if I would use him as "quoted" instead of Story :lol:
BTW, did you catch the one thing Virgil and I can not get our heads around? I mentioned it in post #3183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
@VirgilQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I know I said I had nothing more to add Virgil, but there is one more point I'd like to make about the eyes - I think we're confusing "nordic" with "North".Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
In post #3180 you say
But Egbert is NOT from the north. He's the ultimite southener, the higher being (in Winifred eyes, see last paragraph story untill now).Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Then in post #3185, after I've been rambling about eye colours and genetics, you mention
I think you hit the jackpot there: no connection to North or South, but rather to character. Though with Lawrence such is connected to North and South England ;) It is Godfrey who is from the North, and his daughter is quite like him. It is Egbert, the dreamer, the blue eyed, who's from the South. So his eyes might be nordic, but he is from the South. You connect Vikings to Saxons, but the Vikings are also the Normans. :crazy: Maybe even more so. They sure got around ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Thank you. It was very interesting to try and figure it all out :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, I noticed that. To be honest, I did have the thought "why on earth does he keep on repeating? He did rewrite this, did he not? Then why on earth does he make the mistake to keep on repeating himself" :blush: Now you connect it with the title and claim it is a motive within the story, it suddenly makes sense :blush: I should have known he would not make a mistake like that :banghead:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Funny, to me this really stood out. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Agreed, and I've tried to find some pictures of the cottages the Meynell's had - but I cannot find those on the internet. I guess the family does not really want to be connected to this story, so they will not be eager to attract tourists who want to see the place "for real".Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
BTW, what a wonderful word: verisimiltude. :D
:lol: Yes, but I think we need to keep something in mind here: Mr Marshall has found his fortune, but he was not born rich and STILL has to work for his living. He likes to play father Christmas, because the money is still a bit special to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
And while he still works, providing for everybody, his son-in-law does not. So what will happen when he stops working? I am not sure there will be enough money to provide for everybody - at least not as they live now. Priscilla nor Magdalen seem to be married... who will take over the family business? Is there a family business? Or does Mr Marshall work for a boss? That is an odd idea... I do not really see him taking orders.
Lawrence does not mention any of this, but it might be playing in the heads of the Marshalls; build up over time. Everybody just seems to think Godfrey will be around forever, like some almighty and immortal provider.
So with the Cottage (so no rent to pay) they could probably live of it quite easily? But with 3 children, money would be tight? It is mentioned later that Egbert can not afford the nurse, and - hold on. I'll go into this when we get there :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes. It is probably what everybody assumed, maybe even Egbert.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
:) Well, they sure seem to enjoy it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I've reread what Janine posted from wikipedia and I found this link. It does not tell about any natural inheretance to land, but it does state that "commoners" have rights towards the "common". And obligations, for they have to take care of it :) But I can not really figure out how those commoners get their rights. If Winifred has hers, it does seem to be a bit capitalistic - Marshall must have bought those rights (with the property itself). Or it is rather seen as an obligation: if you live next to that common, you take care of it - taking care of the neighbourhood :D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgl
No! No! No! I for one refuse to submit! :p I am not going to take over Egberts attitude! We are going to figure this one out :D. Even if it means me writing a letter to the English ambassador! Or to some lecturer at Cambridge. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
:eek2: I guess I made it through the day without something happening to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
That's true about Egbert. Perhaps we should look at him as someone out of place, a left over from a previous epoch.Quote:
I know I said I had nothing more to add Virgil, but there is one more point I'd like to make about the eyes - I think we're confusing "nordic" with "North".
In post #3180 you say
But Egbert is NOT from the north. He's the ultimite southener, the higher being (in Winifred eyes, see last paragraph story untill now).
Then in post #3185, after I've been rambling about eye colours and genetics, you mention
I think you hit the jackpot there: no connection to North or South, but rather to character. Though with Lawrence such is connected to North and South England ;) It is Godfrey who is from the North, and his daughter is quite like him. It is Egbert, the dreamer, the blue eyed, who's from the South. So his eyes might be nordic, but he is from the South. You connect Vikings to Saxons, but the Vikings are also the Normans. :crazy: Maybe even more so. They sure got around ;)
At this point I can't figure it out either. We'll have to see if something dawns on us as we go through the story.Quote:
Yes, I noticed that. To be honest, I did have the thought "why on earth does he keep on repeating? He did rewrite this, did he not? Then why on earth does he make the mistake to keep on repeating himself" :blush: Now you connect it with the title and claim it is a motive within the story, it suddenly makes sense :blush: I should have known he would not make a mistake like that :banghead:
A very important word for understanding fiction.Quote:
BTW, what a wonderful word: verisimiltude. :D
Excellent points here. I take it that Marshall doesn't work for anyone. I'm surprised Lawrence doesn't get more specific as to what his wealth is from.Quote:
:lol: Yes, but I think we need to keep something in mind here: Mr Marshall has found his fortune, but he was not born rich and STILL has to work for his living. He likes to play father Christmas, because the money is still a bit special to him.
And while he still works, providing for everybody, his son-in-law does not. So what will happen when he stops working? I am not sure there will be enough money to provide for everybody - at least not as they live now. Priscilla nor Magdalen seem to be married... who will take over the family business? Is there a family business? Or does Mr Marshall work for a boss? That is an odd idea... I do not really see him taking orders.
Lawrence does not mention any of this, but it might be playing in the heads of the Marshalls; build up over time. Everybody just seems to think Godfrey will be around forever, like some almighty and immortal provider.
Ok, I found that the average salary in 1915 in the US was $750 and that a Model T auto cost $345. I also found that the exchange rate between the US$ and the British pound in 1915 was about 1 pound to 4.8$. So 150 pounds equals to $720. That's right around an average salary. Not rich but not poor. Working class.Quote:
So with the Cottage (so no rent to pay) they could probably live of it quite easily? But with 3 children, money would be tight? It is mentioned later that Egbert can not afford the nurse, and - hold on. I'll go into this when we get there :)
:lol: :lol: Ok.Quote:
I've reread what Janine posted from wikipedia and I found this link. It does not tell about any natural inheretance to land, but it does state that "commoners" have rights towards the "common". And obligations, for they have to take care of it :) But I can not really figure out how those commoners get their rights. If Winifred has hers, it does seem to be a bit capitalistic - Marshall must have bought those rights (with the property itself). Or it is rather seen as an obligation: if you live next to that common, you take care of it - taking care of the neighbourhood :D.
No! No! No! I for one refuse to submit! :p I am not going to take over Egberts attitude! We are going to figure this one out :D. Even if it means me writing a letter to the English ambassador! Or to some lecturer at Cambridge. :p
Well, something odd did happen to me. Or rather on Saturday the 14th... but that's close enough, is it not? And it is not something which happened to me: it is something I read. It would have perfectly worked as a horror story to be told by the camp fire, but I read it over coffee in the sun in a very realistic setting. It gave me the shivers though. Here is what happened:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I was flipping through a magazine which I think is a bit like "Good House Keeping" in the USA. Except this one has a comic in the back :) My eye fell on a story though, and I started to read... It was about a farmers family with 3 children, 2 girls and a boy. The youngest girl is crazy about the farm. At the time of this story, she is 5 years old and she starts exploring her limits - always pushing a bit after "no" has been said. One day, this goes wrong: she's too curious, she comes too close to the tractor while the farmer does not know she is there. And she dies. A very tragic accident - and especially the father has a strong feeling of guilt about it. Nobody blames him, but he blames himself.
I guess you all see the equalities and the differences of the Lawrence story. And unfortunately it is something which "just happens": about 380 children go to the emergency room every year due to farm-related accidents, of which 4 die. Most of the accidents concern a tractor on the other end. So, sad as it is, it is not that strange to read a story like this while we are reading "England, My England". The one thing that made me catch my breath though, was the name of the farmer. His name is Egbert...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably :nod: A noble man from years gone by. When working was something you just did not do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I'm sure we'll think of something :) We will probably even find multiple reasons :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Maybe to keep the focus on the fact that he is working, that he makes money, that he stands for something. As the narrator and winifred point out later: it is not just that Egbert makes no money, it is that he stands for nothing. Except for his own "liberty" :wink5: So it is just what Godfrey stands for. Details about his job and the origin of his money are deemed to be not important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Kind of ironic, don't you think? Working class, but not working...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Do you think we have the word figured out? I for one think we do - a piece of land which has certain rights and obligations attached to it. The right and obligations differ per common, per county. And even the definition of "owner" differs per common. Sometimes it is the county, sometimes it is a group of farmers, sometimes it is one person who has to give right of way, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Sapphire, that bit about the article and the farmer's name being Egbert...that would creep me out a bit too...poor little girl.
I'm late in the coming on comments to the thread, but I've been reading as much of your comments as I can guys. For the most part, I am playing the role of silent observer. You guys are good with your comments - oh and Sapphire I was in no way hinting earlier on that you should shorten your posts. After spending so much time in university critically analyzing much of what I read - and then being out of school for awhile....I find the analyzing and critical thinking task on my part a bit daunting. My brain....is turning to mush :D I'm looking to ease into the process...or rather, make sure I don't fall out of it completely.
So I may be slow in comments but I am loving everything you guys are saying.
Virgil just a side note, your response of my comment about shouldn't Winifred have known who she was marrying reminded me of this saying I heard (in passing and in planning my friend's wedding) - that "men get married hoping their wife will always stay the same and women get married hoping that men will change" and something along the lines that that usually doesn't happen. Then I started thinking about Egbert and Winifred......again. :D
With more time, I'm going to re-read the story.
That is amazing. Wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
You're probably right.Quote:
Maybe to keep the focus on the fact that he is working, that he makes money, that he stands for something. As the narrator and winifred point out later: it is not just that Egbert makes no money, it is that he stands for nothing. Except for his own "liberty" :wink5: So it is just what Godfrey stands for. Details about his job and the origin of his money are deemed to be not important.
:lol: Yes, sort of like Lawrence. But he wrote and that is working.Quote:
Kind of ironic, don't you think? Working class, but not working...
Yes, I finally think we do with your definition there. Thanks. :)Quote:
Do you think we have the word figured out? I for one think we do - a piece of land which has certain rights and obligations attached to it. The right and obligations differ per common, per county. And even the definition of "owner" differs per common. Sometimes it is the county, sometimes it is a group of farmers, sometimes it is one person who has to give right of way, etc.
Thank you Grace. Feel free to join in when something motivates you to either add or contradict a thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by grace86
I've used that proverb (would you call it a proverb?) myself: Men marry thinking their wives will never change, and of course they do; women marry thinking they can change their husbands and they never can't. :D It's very true. So don't marry a man if you're thinking you'll make him better in the long run. If he's not as you want him now, he'll only get worse. :wink5:Quote:
Virgil just a side note, your response of my comment about shouldn't Winifred have known who she was marrying reminded me of this saying I heard (in passing and in planning my friend's wedding) - that "men get married hoping their wife will always stay the same and women get married hoping that men will change" and something along the lines that that usually doesn't happen. Then I started thinking about Egbert and Winifred......again. :D
I am so sorry that I have been so absent this week. Let me know when you want me to post more text. I have a few things other than internet going on right now and I have to attend to those - vitally important. Soon you will have more of my attention. I have been reading every single word, like Grace ,and been enjoying this lively interchange of ideas. I will get to the points that Sapphire wanted me to address; but after tomorrow, I must delay, because of this household stuff going on presently. Thanks for everyone's patience.