D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Janine]

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.

Here we go.......tell me we are not getting into the phallic quality of the snake again....


I will let Sapphire answer your post...asside from your suggestive snake remark...

She is probably snoozing away now half way round the world.

[Virgil]

Here we go.......tell me we are not getting into the phallic quality of the snake again....

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.

[Sapphire]

I will let Sapphire answer your post...asside from your suggestive snake remark...
She is probably snoozing away now half way round the world.

Yes Madam I was sleeping like a baby at this time - 3:30 (am). As for the snake - I'll even remark on that . As I see in the above post, it is you who goes into the dirty corners of the mind here (I went there too, don't worry )

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."

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". What I mean to say is this: the word was around before socialism was
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"
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.

Ah, I will put it into words by the end of our discussion.

I'll patiently wait another month for the answer/explination

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.

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

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.

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 I've got quite some ideas

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.

That's a literary way to put it - ramifications is a wonderful word.

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.

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

Nice history lesson. 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.

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 ). 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 I'll point it out at the text where people indeed get a name - notice how Egbert is a "he" until the 6th paragraph.

Very pretty flowers and garden description. Lawrence is always great at that.

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

I'll be back...

More paragraphs of the chunck of the story posted by Janine

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.'

Children playing in the garden 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. They seem indeed to be the ones in control.

His heart was hard with disillusion: a continual gnawing and resistance. But he worked on. What was there to do but submit!

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!” I wish I knew the English translation of the Dutch word “lapswans”

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.

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
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? I really should know this! I think it stands for prosperity in the sexual life. Something like that.

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.

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 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?
Or do I misunderstand the word “re-create”, and does it simply indicate that he changed the (enduring) garden to his wishes?

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.

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. “Yeomen” did not ring a bell in any way, though apparently that word is mentioned in Hamlet (Act5, Scene 2, line 36) Here is the explanation from The Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase & Fable:

Anciently, a forty-shilling freeholder, and as such qualified to vote and serve on juries, but not qualified to rank as one of the gentry. In more modern times it meant farmer who cultivated his own freehold. Later still, an upper farmer, tenant, or otherwise, is often called a yeoman.

Oh, and this is the paragraph where Egbert's name is finaly revealed

NAMES
Virgil mentioned Egbert and Marshall:

Egbert is a very old anglo-saxon name. Contrast that with the name "Marshall" which is French and has a military association.

Janine mentioned Egbert:

Perhaps, he is an idealist, much like the author. Bye the way, Lawrence was known by Bert in his youthful years. See any connection?

Marshall

(A.S. mere = mare, scealc = servant; O.Fr. mareschal) Originally one who tended horses, either as a groom or farrier; now the title of high officials about the Court, in the armed forces etc.

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. 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
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 has been the patron saint of England since about 1348. St. George had been popular in England from the time of the early Crusades (1089). He is the patron of soldiers and the war-cry of England was "St George!"
He was probably a Cappadocian who suffered martyrdom under Diocletian (303). The legend tells of him and a dragon. One version states that he was asked to come and subdue a dragon that infested a pond at Silene, Libya, and fed on the dwellers in the neighbourhood. He came, rescued a princess (Sabra) whom the dreagon was about to make his prey, and slew the monster after he had wounded it and the princess had led it home in triumph by her girdle.

St. George and the dragon! I should have thought of that before A well known legend Slaying a dragon (evil) comes pretty close to slaying a snake.
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

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 .
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 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?

[Janine]

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!

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.

[Virgil]

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". What I mean to say is this: the word was around before socialism was
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"
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.

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.

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

I think it's a process toward submission for Egbert. And yes Lawrence was stubborn and never submitted.

That's a literary way to put it - ramifications is a wonderful word.

Thanks.

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

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.

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 ). 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 I'll point it out at the text where people indeed get a name - notice how Egbert is a "he" until the 6th paragraph

Yes, but the Normans ultimately won and established the South as more continental as opposed to the North as more nordic/saxon.

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

Yes, flame comes up a few times. And the flowers are symbolic as the ideal being as in other Lawrence stories.

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!” I wish I knew the English translation of the Dutch word “lapswans”

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.

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

Agreed. The snakes are there but there is peace with the savage beasts, edenic.

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? I really should know this! I think it stands for prosperity in the sexual life. Something like that.

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.

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 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?

Not sure what to make of "re-create" either. Perhaps Janine can help here.

Or do I misunderstand the word “re-create”, and does it simply indicate that he changed the (enduring) garden to his wishes?

It does seem to have some special significance. I'm not sure either.

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. “Yeomen” did not ring a bell in any way, though apparently that word is mentioned in Hamlet (Act5, Scene 2, line 36) Here is the explanation from The Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase & Fable:

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.

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

Janine mentioned Egbert:

Good pick up Janine. I hadn't realized it.

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. Marshall = Marsh + all. So marshes all around

Oh yes, marsh. The setting is in a marshy place, isn't it?

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

Yep! I'm sure Lawrence liked that.

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

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.

George
As George is Catholic, I searched for the meaning of St. George

Is his first name George? I have Godfrey in my edition:

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.

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.

[Sapphire]

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)

EDIT (later this day):

I think it's a process toward submission for Egbert. And yes Lawrence was stubborn and never submitted.

I meant Egbert was stubborn, but I see what you mean

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.

Not genetics, just symbolism - got it.

Yes, but the Normans ultimately won and established the South as more continental as opposed to the North as more nordic/saxon.

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 . And I bet there were enough Saxons with blue eyes .

And the flowers are symbolic as the ideal being as in other Lawrence stories.

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...
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 Didn't Lawrence also like to think both ways?

I think that "what to do but submit" is coming from later in the time sequence of the story.

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.

And we get more of it later which I'm sure will be pointed out.

I do not doubt it

Egbert is a very odd name to give a 20th century character.

The name looked so familiar to me, and I figured out why 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

Is his first name George? I have Godfrey in my edition

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 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!

Lets look into Godfrey then. 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.

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.

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.
But that is current times and an other country 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. 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:

One of the most important events of Alice's early life took place on 20 July, 1868, when Father Augustus Dignam received her into the Catholic Church. Of no less moment than her religious commitment was her passionate attachment to the handsome, intellectual priest; this entirely hopeless love gave rise to some of her most moving poetry, including "After a Parting" and the justly famous "Renouncement." Alice and Father Dignam corresponded for two years, after which their contact became only occasional.

So the mother was definitely Catholic, and on wikipedia we read that the father was too:

After Alice was born, the entire Thompson family converted to the Roman Catholic Church (1868 to 1880), and her writings migrated to subjects of religious matters. This eventually led her to the Catholic newspaper publisher and editor Wilfrid Meynell (1852 - 1948) in 1876.

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.

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 . If 5% was Catholic though, it is not that strange a thing to write about a catholic character.

English Catholicism retained its renewed strength throughout the first half of the twentieth century, when it was associated primarily with elements in the English intellectual class and the ethnic Irish population.

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 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.

[grace86]

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.

[Virgil]

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 . And I bet there were enough Saxons with blue eyes .

Egbert would be associated with the Vikings/Saxons who lost to the Normans from the south.

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...

No not turning into a flower. It's Lawrence's way of bringing flowers into the story. Plus it creates the Eden.

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...

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.

As you can see, I am a bit torn on this point Didn't Lawrence also like to think both ways?

I think we can get overly wrapped up in symbols. First priority is the story.

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.

Yes, I agree with all that.

Lets look into Godfrey then. 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.

He is God-like in the story. The name fits, and Frankish is close to the Normans.

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.

I didn't realize Holland was half Catholic. I thought it was all Protestant. That's interesting to know.

But that is current times and an other country 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 . If 5% was Catholic though, it is not that strange a thing to write about a catholic character.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

[Virgil]

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...

No problem Gracie. You're almost done.

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.

He really is great at that. I don't think there is anyone better.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

People evolve in marriages. It's not always ideal.

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.

You're almost done. Finish up and reply to our comments.

[grace86]

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!

[Sapphire]

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 And when 3 posts gets merged into one it does start to look like a novel 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

I totally agree on what you have to say about Lawrence writing abilities regarding the relationship between men and women.

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.

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 . And the more Winifred trusts on her dad, the less inclined Egbert is to make an effort

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.

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".

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.

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 To me it is rather a myth which tries to explain something, than a story about morals...

@Virgil
Thank you for your thorough answer to my post: I have nothing more to add . Well, to this part that is I especially like your idea of the story being

analogous microcosm of English history as Lawrence sees it

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.

Commentary on the last part of the chunck of text Janine posted in post #3173

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.

So the garden is his project, but NOT the house – no alternations there
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

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.

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 . Later in the paragraph his nose is said to be from an “old country family” though 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 He was daydreaming at the moment, wasn’t he?
“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”.

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.

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 {link} I hope it fits a bit with your ideas of the place: it was hard to puzzle it together.
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.

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.

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.
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 .
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 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”.

A grotesque dance, popular in England in the 15th century and later, in which the dancers usually represented characters from the Robin Hood series. It was brought from Spain in the reign of Edward III, and was originally a military dance of the Moors, or Moriscos – hence its name.

I only ever heard of Morris-dances once before in this story: they’re made fun of in Terry Pratchet’s books
Notice further how the "common" is Winifreds! That blows the whole theory away which we had about that word

[Janine]

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! silly me ROFLOL

[Virgil]

@Virgil
Thank you for your thorough answer to my post: I have nothing more to add . Well, to this part that is I especially like your idea of the story being

You're welcome, and Sapphire, you are just too charming.

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.

Commentary on the last part of the chunck of text Janine posted in post #3173

How lazy of me not to have read back. I apologize. That was excellent research Sapphire and very pertinent and enlightening to the 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

That is oddly written. I wonder myself.

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 . Later in the paragraph his nose is said to be from an “old country family” though But this is later…

Yes, flame and old England are very important. Also, look at this:

And he, he was tall and slim and agile, like an English archer with his long supple legs and fine movements.

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.


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 He was daydreaming at the moment, wasn’t he?
“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 {link} I hope it fits a bit with your ideas of the place: it was hard to puzzle it together.

Ha! What a great sketch. I love it.

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 would never have really picked that up without your sketch.

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?

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.

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.

Rich daddy providses everything.

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 .

Actually I think that's not bad. I think it would be considered better than average.

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 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.

I only ever heard of Morris-dances once before in this story

I had never heard of them either. thanks. Here's a youtube video of morris dancing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao.

Notice further how the "common" is Winifreds! That blows the whole theory away which we had about that word

well, that's what makes me wonder if I'm missing some nuance with the notion of commons. But we'll never know.

[Janine]

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.

[Sapphire]

Friday the 13th - everybody be aware!

@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. There are some benefits in different timezones
I wonder whether you'd be searching for Lawrence if I would use him as "quoted" instead of Story
BTW, did you catch the one thing Virgil and I can not get our heads around? I mentioned it in post #3183

“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?

Not sure what to make of "re-create" either. Perhaps Janine can help here. It does seem to have some special significance. I'm not sure either.

@Virgil

You're welcome, and Sapphire, you are just too charming.

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

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.

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 don't think Lawrence was thinking genetics. I think the nordic blue eyes suggest a certain idealism while the brown symbolize common and practical.

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. Maybe even more so. They sure got around

That was excellent research Sapphire and very pertinent and enlightening to the story.

Thank you. It was very interesting to try and figure it all out

This repetition of words happens so frequently throughout the story.

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" Now you connect it with the title and claim it is a motive within the story, it suddenly makes sense I should have known he would not make a mistake like that

I would never have really picked that up without your sketch.

Funny, to me this really stood out.

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.

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".
BTW, what a wonderful word: verisimiltude.

Rich daddy providses everything.

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.

Actually I think that's not bad. I think it would be considered better than average.

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

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.

Yes. It is probably what everybody assumed, maybe even Egbert.

Here's a youtube video of morris dancing

Well, they sure seem to enjoy it

that's what makes me wonder if I'm missing some nuance with the notion of commons.

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 .

But we'll never know.

No! No! No! I for one refuse to submit! I am not going to take over Egberts attitude! We are going to figure this one out . Even if it means me writing a letter to the English ambassador! Or to some lecturer at Cambridge.