D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Janine]

Quark and Dark Muse,

Good discussion going on here - sorry I missed it, but you two have come up with plenty of new ideas or expanded ones on things earlier discussed and I will think more about all this. I will try to post some comments tomorrow. Keep discussing! I'm listening.

Let me say one thing. I see this story as a progression/regression of life and the path to inescapable 'death', as all must face. In this way death is the pathway to that infinity or eternity...."the vast unknown from which no traveler returns".

[Hira]

Yep. Good Discussion! Keep it going.

Just wanted to post an excerpt from a letter D.H.Lawrence wrote, which I thought interesting.

I have been reading the poems and am more struck by those I have never seen before. They have got the other-world in them, which is the world of poetry. They are in the other-world. One must either be in this world or in the world beyond, in the temporal or the eternal life. One cannot have one foot on sea and one on shore. And your best poems belong to the eternal world altogether. ‘Loneliness’ is almost perfect.

‘And what has the melodied soul to do
With aught but what is blest?
It cannot laugh, nor blame, nor teach
Defend nor interest.

This is quite perfect and a very great truth. Such loneliness where one lives in the presence of things blest, in the knowledge of the Infinite, the Eternal, where each thing is consummate and completed, this is the very antithesis of loneliness. Loneliness is part of temporality and partiality, it has no place in eternality. Milton’s God is the great Absolute, the Eternity interpreted by us, from mortality, into loneliness. But it is just this which is not loneliness which avails against all loneliness.

I don't know why I thought this passage from 'Twilight in Italy' might be important in some way. There is more too over here. I don't really get all of it or most of it. Janine, since you've read the book, could it have any role in explaining the story?

It is the inevitable philosophic conclusion of all the Renaissance. The deepest impulse in man, the religious impulse, is the desire to be immortal, or infinite, consummated. And this impulse is satisfied in fulfilment of an idea, a steady progression. In this progression man is satisfied, he seems to have reached his goal, this infinity, this immortality, this eternal being, with every step nearer which he takes.

And so, according to his idea of fulfilment, man establishes the whole order of life. If my fulfilment is the fulfilment and establishment of the unknown divine Self which I am, then I shall proceed in the realizing of the greatest idea of the self, the highest conception of the I, my order of life will be kingly, imperial, aristocratic. The body politic also will culminate in this divinity of the flesh, this body imbued with glory, invested with divine power and might, the King, the Emperor. In the body politic also I shall desire a king, an emperor, a tyrant, glorious, mighty, in whom I see myself consummated and fulfilled. This is inevitable!

But during the Middle Ages, struggling within this pagan, original transport, the transport of the Ego, was a small dissatisfaction, a small contrary desire. Amid the pomp of kings and popes was the Child Jesus and the Madonna. Jesus the King gradually dwindled down. There was Jesus the Child, helpless, at the mercy of all the world. And there was Jesus crucified.

The old transport, the old fulfilment of the Ego, the Davidian ecstasy, the assuming of all power and glory unto the self, the becoming infinite through the absorption of all into the Ego, this gradually became unsatisfactory. This was not the infinite, this was not immortality. This was eternal death, this was damnation.

The monk rose up with his opposite ecstasy, the Christian ecstasy. There was a death to die: the flesh, the self, must die, so that the spirit should rise again immortal, eternal, infinite. I am dead unto myself, but I live in the Infinite. The finite Me is no more, only the Infinite, the Eternal, is.

At the Renaissance this great half-truth overcame the other great half-truth. The Christian Infinite, reached by a process of abnegation, a process of being absorbed, dissolved, diffused into the great Not-Self, supplanted the old pagan Infinite, wherein the self like a root threw out branches and radicles which embraced the whole universe, became the Whole.

There is only one Infinite, the world now cried, there is the great Christian Infinite of renunciation and consummation in the not-self. The other, that old pride, is damnation. The sin of sins is Pride, it is the way to total damnation. Whereas the pagans based their life on pride.

And according to this new Infinite, reached through renunciation and dissolving into the Others, the Neighbour, man must build up his actual form of life. With Savonarola and Martin Luther the living Church actually transformed itself, for the Roman Church was still pagan. Henry VIII simply said: ‘There is no Church, there is only the State.’ But with Shakespeare the transformation had reached the State also. The King, the Father, the representative of the Consummate Self, the maximum of all life, the symbol of the consummate being, the becoming Supreme, Godlike, Infinite, he must perish and pass away. This Infinite was not infinite, this consummation was not consummated, all this was fallible, false. It was rotten, corrupt. It must go. But Shakespeare was also the thing itself. Hence his horror, his frenzy, his self-loathing.

The King, the Emperor is killed in the soul of man, the old order of life is over, the old tree is dead at the root. So said Shakespeare. It was finally enacted in Cromwell. Charles I took up the old position of kingship by divine right. Like Hamlet’s father, he was blameless otherwise. But as representative of the old form of life, which mankind now hated with frenzy, he must be cut down, removed. It was a symbolic act.

The world, our world of Europe, had now really turned, swung round to a new goal, a new idea, the Infinite reached through the omission of Self. God is all that which is Not-Me. I am consummate when my Self, the resistant solid, is reduced and diffused into all that which is Not-Me: my neighbour, my enemy, the great Otherness. Then I am perfect.

[Janine]

Yep. Good Discussion! Keep it going.

Hira, I like the first exerpt very much. Can you tell me what letter it is from and what the date of the letter is. I wish to look up the entire letter.

This second exerpt from "Twilight in Italy", I must have read before, since I read all three of the travel books. I have been thinking back to the "Sea in Sardinia" book as relating more closely to this story, but now that you present us with this passage, this may directly relate or at least some elements of this writing may; although I have to tell you, Lawrence often changed his mind later about things or modified his ideas. I do think much of this writing does embody many of his beliefs, but I find it confusing, to some degree, as though Lawrence was gropping for the answers to eternity. I will ask Virgil to take a look at this writing and try to explain. My attempts may be somewhat limited or even lame at explaining this. Lawrence often placed long 'sermons' in his books and these have to be read over and over to really comprehend just what he meant by them. This passage is setting forth to the reader all, or some of the various belief systems predominent in the world or throughout history and showing how the idea of 'self' was basically annilated. Or so I think this is what he is saying. Lawrence did believe in some strange things, like the thought of a man's own divinity or a ruling person. I just read "The Plumed Serpent" and this idea is explored in this novel. Two men become as gods on the earth exchanging the place of the 'crucified Christ'. In other words these old gods come to earth to replace the dead Christ present in the Christian churches (crucifixes play heavily into this equation) and therefore Christ ascends to Heaven to be at last with his Father. Now worship turns to these two former, now 'new', Mexican gods to rule the country. What exactly Lawrence was getting at, is difficult to say. He wanted the divine to be present in a real live human being and not in a dead image. This is one thing I believe he was saying in the book. Where one would take this theory is not of my saying.
I am hoping Virgil can shed some light on all this. This is getting deeply into the philosophies of the author, which takes years to really study and analysis. I don't think most people in the thread would be aware of other Lawrence works and how this relates. Virgil might see the relation to this story. I do in a remote way, but I can't really find the word to express that.

Which part of the story do these thoughts take place? Also, I will look up the exact year that Lawrence wrote "Twilight in Italy". This might prove to be very significant.

I did not re-post your passages, so all, please see above to Hira's entry.

I am editing this now since I just looked up somethings about the letter - I now see your link, Hira, about and the letter is around 1915 -this is early in Lawrence's life and career. At about the same period he began writing "Twilight in Italy" so these are very early thoughts coming from the author. Actually, the earliest reference I find in my book is that he was beginning to write this book in 1912, so from what I can see by 1915 he had named the novel and was sending proofs off to his publisher. This all coincides with the same time period he is writing "Sons and Lovers". This is quite interesting to me.
The Plumed Serpent is a much later work and so is this story "The Man Who Loved Islands". The philosophies of Lawrence's presented in a sketchy way in this writing may only be the mere seeds of ideas to be more developed and explored in greater depth, in Lawrence's later work and ideas on 'transfiguration'. Virgil knows greatly of "Transfiguration" concepts in Lawrence works and can tell you more about this idea, since he wrote his thesis on this aspect of Lawrence.

[Hira]

Here is the link to the letter (Its in my first post too though). Written to Margaret Radford, June 1915.

I took it from here. Its part 3 of 'On the Lago di Garda' ,'The Theatre'. Almost beyond half-way down the page is where I took the excerpt.

P.S. I haven't at the moment though fully read or digested what you've written.

[Janine]

Hira, I edited above and found the letter - thanks anyway, sorry to have troubled you about it. I had not noticed your link.

How interesting - you found the whole book online of "Twilight in Italy"...I have been checking out that site and it is just a shame they don't also have "Sea and Sardinia" and "Etruscan Tombs" as well. I guess that would be asking a lot, right; Hira, you are good, finding this rare book online. You are a research analysis like me! haha. I also looked to see if they might have "The White Peacock", but they don't....oh well.


Quark and Dark Muse, I must address your discussion and debate later on, since I have to go out now for the evening. Sorry.

[Dark Muse]

Hira,Quark and Dark Muse, I must address your discussion and debate later on, since I have to go out now for the evening. Sorry.

It is alright, take your time

[Santé]

I've read the Rocking Horse Winner and actually had to do a project on it.

[Janine]

I've read the Rocking Horse Winner and actually had to do a project on it.

Hi Santé, welcome to the forum. I see you are a new member. There is much here to offer a person. We have a monthly reading of one of Lawrence's short stories; if you check back you will see we have discussed several so far. This month the story is "The Man Who Loved Islands". I believe Lawrence wrote this around the same time as he wrote "The Rocking Horse Winner". This was the late period in Lawrence's career and his short life. This second story, that you mention may be a possibility for one of our discussions. I can't promise when. If you are interested in Lawrence's writing, please feel free to join in our next discussion. We have not decided on a story as yet.

How did you like the story? I can't recall if I read it years ago or not. I think it was presented in most high schools or universities, as a required short story read and essay. I believe I did read it - I have a vague memory but I think I do definitely need a re-reading soon. It has been brought up to me so often - one of his most popular stories I believe.

Hira, If you were to read all three of Lawrence's travel books you would see a progression and changes in his attitudes towards eternity. I also read his "Apocalyse" and this is quite an interesting book, although I don't believe what Lawrence writes to be true I find his theories quite fascinating. I need to re-read this book someday.

Dark Muse and Quark and whomever else is here, I have to delay some more till this coming week; I am quite busy today, it being a weekend day. Keep posting if you all want to. I will go back and read all and comment later.

[Virgil]

I don't know why I thought this passage from 'Twilight in Italy' might be important in some way. There is more too over here. I don't really get all of it or most of it. Janine, since you've read the book, could it have any role in explaining the story?

Quote:
It is the inevitable philosophic conclusion of all the Renaissance. The deepest impulse in man, the religious impulse, is the desire to be immortal, or infinite, consummated. And this impulse is satisfied in fulfilment of an idea, a steady progression. In this progression man is satisfied, he seems to have reached his goal, this infinity, this immortality, this eternal being, with every step nearer which he takes.

And so, according to his idea of fulfilment, man establishes the whole order of life. If my fulfilment is the fulfilment and establishment of the unknown divine Self which I am, then I shall proceed in the realizing of the greatest idea of the self, the highest conception of the I, my order of life will be kingly, imperial, aristocratic. The body politic also will culminate in this divinity of the flesh, this body imbued with glory, invested with divine power and might, the King, the Emperor. In the body politic also I shall desire a king, an emperor, a tyrant, glorious, mighty, in whom I see myself consummated and fulfilled. This is inevitable!

But during the Middle Ages, struggling within this pagan, original transport, the transport of the Ego, was a small dissatisfaction, a small contrary desire. Amid the pomp of kings and popes was the Child Jesus and the Madonna. Jesus the King gradually dwindled down. There was Jesus the Child, helpless, at the mercy of all the world. And there was Jesus crucified.

The old transport, the old fulfilment of the Ego, the Davidian ecstasy, the assuming of all power and glory unto the self, the becoming infinite through the absorption of all into the Ego, this gradually became unsatisfactory. This was not the infinite, this was not immortality. This was eternal death, this was damnation.

The monk rose up with his opposite ecstasy, the Christian ecstasy. There was a death to die: the flesh, the self, must die, so that the spirit should rise again immortal, eternal, infinite. I am dead unto myself, but I live in the Infinite. The finite Me is no more, only the Infinite, the Eternal, is.

At the Renaissance this great half-truth overcame the other great half-truth. The Christian Infinite, reached by a process of abnegation, a process of being absorbed, dissolved, diffused into the great Not-Self, supplanted the old pagan Infinite, wherein the self like a root threw out branches and radicles which embraced the whole universe, became the Whole.

There is only one Infinite, the world now cried, there is the great Christian Infinite of renunciation and consummation in the not-self. The other, that old pride, is damnation. The sin of sins is Pride, it is the way to total damnation. Whereas the pagans based their life on pride.

And according to this new Infinite, reached through renunciation and dissolving into the Others, the Neighbour, man must build up his actual form of life. With Savonarola and Martin Luther the living Church actually transformed itself, for the Roman Church was still pagan. Henry VIII simply said: ‘There is no Church, there is only the State.’ But with Shakespeare the transformation had reached the State also. The King, the Father, the representative of the Consummate Self, the maximum of all life, the symbol of the consummate being, the becoming Supreme, Godlike, Infinite, he must perish and pass away. This Infinite was not infinite, this consummation was not consummated, all this was fallible, false. It was rotten, corrupt. It must go. But Shakespeare was also the thing itself. Hence his horror, his frenzy, his self-loathing.

The King, the Emperor is killed in the soul of man, the old order of life is over, the old tree is dead at the root. So said Shakespeare. It was finally enacted in Cromwell. Charles I took up the old position of kingship by divine right. Like Hamlet’s father, he was blameless otherwise. But as representative of the old form of life, which mankind now hated with frenzy, he must be cut down, removed. It was a symbolic act.

The world, our world of Europe, had now really turned, swung round to a new goal, a new idea, the Infinite reached through the omission of Self. God is all that which is Not-Me. I am consummate when my Self, the resistant solid, is reduced and diffused into all that which is Not-Me: my neighbour, my enemy, the great Otherness. Then I am perfect.

Absolutely this is relavant Hira. This encapsulates a lot of Lawrence's ideas about religion. Let me recopy this last paragraph:

The world, our world of Europe, had now really turned, swung round to a new goal, a new idea, the Infinite reached through the omission of Self. God is all that which is Not-Me. I am consummate when my Self, the resistant solid, is reduced and diffused into all that which is Not-Me: my neighbour, my enemy, the great Otherness. Then I am perfect.

This is Lawrence stating his belief that perfection is the loss of our self, our egos as he refers to it. That is why Cathcart cannot achieve utopia, at least not until death. His ego (and I use this in the Lawrencian sense, not the common sense or the Freudian sense; Lawrence's use is different, almost synonmous with self or an individual's personality or individual's persona) conflicts with others and with nature and the elements. Like I've said, for Lawrence the ultimate perfection of existence is a flower, the absense of ego. So as you read this passage again, think of ego as I've extracted the meaning from Lawrence's writings. So let me also say that when you see in a Lawrence work an exertion of will, that is an outpouring of a character's ego, and that's contrary to the religious ideal that Lawrence wants. I hope that answered it Hira and Janine, who was asking for my opinion in this.

[Janine]

Absolutely this is relavant Hira. This encapsulates a lot of Lawrence's ideas about religion. Let me recopy this last paragraph:

This is Lawrence stating his belief that perfection is the loss of our self, our egos as he refers to it. That is why Cathcart cannot achieve utopia, at least not until death. His ego (and I use this in the Lawrencian sense, not the common sense or the Freudian sense; Lawrence's use is different, almost synonmous with self or an individual's personality or individual's persona) conflicts with others and with nature and the elements. Like I've said, for Lawrence the ultimate perfection of existence is a flower, the absense of ego. So as you read this passage again, think of ego as I've extracted the meaning from Lawrence's writings. So let me also say that when you see in a Lawrence work an exertion of will, that is an outpouring of a character's ego, and that's contrary to the religious ideal that Lawrence wants. I hope that answered it Hira and Janine, who was asking for my opinion in this.

Virgil, that helped emensely. Thanks so much. I knew you could explain it much better than I could. My attempt was somewhat feeble, I am afraid. I know how L throught, but I just can't explain it, or write it properly. You did a great job here and in minimal words. I perfectly understand what you wrote here. I hope this helps Hira, to grasp the meaning behind the passage quoted.

It is curious to note just when L wrote the passage - quite early in his life and career. What do you make of that in regard to 'Islands' being written much later?

[Dark Muse]

His ego (and I use this in the Lawrencian sense, not the common sense or the Freudian sense; Lawrence's use is different, almost synonmous with self or an individual's personality or individual's persona) conflicts with others and with nature and the elements. Like I've said, for Lawrence the ultimate perfection of existence is a flower, the absense of ego. So as you read this passage again, think of ego as I've extracted the meaning from Lawrence's writings. So let me also say that when you see in a Lawrence work an exertion of will, that is an outpouring of a character's ego, and that's contrary to the religious ideal that Lawrence wants.

I really like your definition of the Ego, in the sense of Lawrence, I found it very interesting, and can definately see what you are seeing. It does make a great deal of sense.

[Hira]

Hira, I edited above and found the letter - thanks anyway, sorry to have troubled you about it. I had not noticed your link.

There was no trouble. I just copy/pasted the link!

Hira, If you were to read all three of Lawrence's travel books you would see a progression and changes in his attitudes towards eternity. I also read his "Apocalyse" and this is quite an interesting book, although I don't believe what Lawrence writes to be true I find his theories quite fascinating. I need to re-read this book someday.

Where did this progression lead to Janine? These letters, they were written quite early. I suppose there has been a lot of change in his opinions between 1915 and 1929. There are a lot of things that are familiar though.

I would try to read them, the 'Twilight in Italy' is available online so I can read that. Will try to find the others.

Absolutely this is relavant Hira. This encapsulates a lot of Lawrence's ideas about religion. Let me recopy this last paragraph:

This is Lawrence stating his belief that perfection is the loss of our self, our egos as he refers to it. That is why Cathcart cannot achieve utopia, at least not until death. His ego (and I use this in the Lawrencian sense, not the common sense or the Freudian sense; Lawrence's use is different, almost synonmous with self or an individual's personality or individual's persona) conflicts with others and with nature and the elements. Like I've said, for Lawrence the ultimate perfection of existence is a flower, the absense of ego. So as you read this passage again, think of ego as I've extracted the meaning from Lawrence's writings. So let me also say that when you see in a Lawrence work an exertion of will, that is an outpouring of a character's ego, and that's contrary to the religious ideal that Lawrence wants. I hope that answered it Hira and Janine, who was asking for my opinion in this.

Yes, I agree with Dark Muse, it does make a lot of sense now. So he had to suffer, the way he did, fade out, suffer crucifixion like the Christ so to speak and then finally after all that be elevated up to perfection.

[quasimodo1]

response to post #834...Holy Moses, Virgil!

[Janine]

Will come back tomorrow with more comments. Sorry again, I have been attending to other online and offline matters that are important to me. I feel I have sort of neglected this discussion lately.

Hira, one thing. Lawrence had the Phoenix for his symbol. This mythological bird burns down to ash, only to rise again to rebirth, or eternal life. You might research more about the Phoenix and Lawrence online. In fact, on Lawrence's memorial gravesite, in New Mexico, there is a small chapel that houses a mosiac of this symbol. I found photos of it online. If I can find the link, I will send it to you.
The point is this would be relative to your last statement, to Dark Muse.

Quasi, I will let Virgil answer your post.

[Virgil]

response to post #834...Holy Moses, Virgil!

I hope that means you liked what I wrote.