D. H. Lawrence's Portrayal of Women

by

Parvindokht Hamidinia

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

College of Humanities in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of

Master of Arts

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, Florida

April 1984 D. H. LAWRENCE'S PORTRAYAL OF WOMEN

by

Parvindokht Hamidinia

This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate's thesis advisor, Dr. William Coyle, Department of English and has been approved by the members of her supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of the College of Humanities and was accepted in partial ful­ fillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.

SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:

Chairperson, Thesi Advisor,

Studies

ii ABSTRACT

Author: Parvindokht Hamidinia

Title: D. H. Lawrence's Portrayal of Women

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Degree: Master of Arts

Year: 1984

Controversy which has surrounded David Herbert Lawrence arises out of misunderstanding of what he was actually saying. Lawrence's depic­ tion of sexual scenes and particularly his vocabulary in presenting these scenes have misled many critics into believing that he was a feminist. Early criticism (1911-1940's) indicates that Lawrence por­ trays the modern liberated woman favorably. From the beginning of the

1950's to the early 1970's, critics agreed that Lawrence respected and understood women. Recent criticism (latter part of 1970's to date) finds to some extent a tone of cynicism toward women. However, the idea that Lawrence understands and respects women still prevails.

Analysis of Lawrence's novels suggests that his heroines are not con­ sistently modern or liberated. These women may be introduced as libe­ rated and intellectual, but in the end they submit to the power of man.

Lawrence's motif is the conflict between male and female, which re­ sults in male dominance and female submission.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .. iii

INTRODUCTION 1

Chapter I. Early Criticism (1911-1940's) .. 7

II. 1950's to Early 1970's . 24

III. Recent Criticism 43

CONCLUSION . . 62

BIBLIOGRAPHY 64

iv INTRODUCTION

David Herbert Lawrence grew up during the period when the women's li- beration movement had already started. Until Lawrence began his literary career, sexual discussions had been restricted in fiction. Lawrence's novels (particularly Sons and Lovers, The Rainbow, Women In Love and Lady

Chatterley's Lover) put an end to this restriction. His depiction of the physical act, his use of sexual vocabulary, and particularly his introduction of intelligent, self-willed women such as Ursula in The Rainbow, Miriam in

Sons And Lovers, and Connie in Lady Chatterley's Lover, gave critics the impression that he was a feminist defending the modern woman. And thus the fact that each of these heroines submits to the will of the man at the end of each novel was overlooked. Lawrence's theme was so new in literature that many critics tended to forget that sexual revolution did not necessarily mean the freeing of women from dependence on men. Lawrence criticism since the publication of The White Peacock shows a change of attitude toward the author; however, the idea that he respected and understood women prevails.

An early article refers to Mrs. Morel in Sons And Lovers as a woman 1 wh ose c h aracter 1s. a rea 1 tr1ump . h . She is said to be "clear headed, faithful to ideas of right, full of strenth and purpose," but at the same 2 time she does not "lack her spice of shrewishness." Another critic says that she is "strong enough" and is "an interesting woman who reigns supreme over every r1va. 1 . .,J / Th e cr1t1cs . . h ave s1mp . 1 y over 1 oo k e d t h e f act t h at },'11rs.

1 2

Morel is a submissive wife who puts up with her drunken husband and becomes a

slave to him and to her children. A review of The White Peacock refers to

this novel as a "characteristic specimen of the modern fiction which is being 4 written by the feminist hand." Although Lettie and Meg, the heroines, are

intellectual, they are only "perfect" when they are tending to their womanly

duties such as cooking and taking care of children. Herbert Seligmann points

out that "Lawrence illumines modern woman" and that "men have made a goddess 5 of women."

Later criticism focuses on the idea that Lawrence respects and unde~-

stands women and treats men and women on equal terms. Norman Mailer states 6 that Lawrence "understood women as they had never been understood before."

In a study of the Celts and women, Julian Moynahan concludes that Lawrence in "working with the Celt-woman link was working for women's liberation and 7 the liberation of all from the fettered past." Mary Freeman reflects:

"For the first time, in Lawrence's writing woman was an equal partner with 8 1 man in social creativity, not by thinking, but by being. " She also says,

"Book after book searches for ways in which men and women of different 9 classes and viewpoints can come together and widen the horizon for both."

Such criticism is misleading as Lawrence does not display sympathy or re- spect for his heroines. He starts them out as being intellectual but crushes them to nothing. Mrs. Morel, who loves life, dies by the will of her son

(he poisons her), because he is tired of her. Paul Morel rejects Miriam because she has a mind of her own and does not want to submit. But she must do so in order to satisfy his male ego and her need to depend on the power of a man. The anti-woman theme of Lady Chatterley's Lover is easily spotted.

Connie is an educated, liberated woman, but she "had to be a passive, con- 10 sent1ng. t h.1ng, l.k1 e a s 1 ave, a p h ys1ca . 1 s 1 ave. " The idea of the essential 3

union of male and female has been considered by some critics. Raymond

Williams comments that Lawrence's "vital study of relationship, which is the

basis of his original contribution to our social thinking, is naturally con­ 11 ducted in the novels and stories." About the marriage of Kate and

Cipriano, Keith Sagar says: "This terrible, complete marriage offers her

passivity and abandon, the abandoning of everything ...

Although Sagar admits the passivity of Kate in this novel, he reflects

that it is "against" Lawrence's "standards," which makes his statement in-

accurate, as Lawrence probably intended to portray Kate as passive and sub-

missive. In Sagar's opinion this submission is "the only salvation from the 13 null freedom." In some criticism, there is even an indication that Law-

renee is a feminist. David Cavitch states that "Lawrence attends principally

to the female reality, to the degree that some reviewers thought that the 14 unfamiliar author was a woman." Tony Slade declares: "Lawrence's bias in 15 Sons And Lovers, of course, is obviously in favor of the mother." And

Hilary Simpson says: "Cooperation with woman is present from the very incep­ 16 tion of Lawrence's writing career." Baruch Ho~an justifies Lawrence's

presentation of submissive women by stating that "they want--ambivalently, to 17 be sure--to submit and succumb to the strong male!" Scott Sanders says:

"Women in search of liberation defying social restrictions, were to remain 18 central figures in Lawrence's fiction to the end." And T. E. Apter says 19 that women submit merely because of "a need for human connection." It is hard to accept Millett's statement that Lady Chatterley's Lover is a quasi­ 20 religious tract recounting the salvation of one modern woman. " Although

Millet reveals Lawrence's sexual politics and his prejudice towards women,

she, too, tends to misunderstand his true intentions at times. For example,

she asserts that "with Lady Chatterley, Lawrence seems to be making his peace 4

with the female" and that "this last work appears almost an act of atone- 21 ment." Actually Lawrence portrays another totally submissive woman in the character of Connie. It is her submission that gives Mellors satisfaction, and she finds happiness in her lover's satisfaction. Hilary Simpson says that Lawrence's novels entail "a change in the relationship between the 22 sexes," and that the women's subsmission is a "free submission." Simpson perceives The Plumed Serpent as "the beginning of a return to a preoccupation 23 with the relationship between men and women."

Lawrence's male chauvinism is not hard to recognize in his novels. His heroines succumb willingly or unwillingly. Almost all of Lawrence's novels portray the battle of the sexes, a battle which always results in the victory of the man. Mrs. Morel, though much more intelligent than her husband, accepts his way of life unquestioningly. Kate submits to Cipriano. Hannele (in The

Captain's Doll) and March (in The Fox) also submit blindly. Ursula in The

Rainbow, the only female character who resists becoming submissive, finally succumbs to Birkin in Women In Love. Each of the heroinesis the intelligent modern woman unable to resist the power or the will of her male counterpart and thus becomes submissive. NOTES

/ 1 The Ath eneu~, No. 4469 (1913), p. 668, in Sons And Lovers, ed. Julian Moynahan (New York: The Viking Press, 1968), p. 424. 2 / Sons and Lovers -- A Novel of Quality," in Critics on

D. H. Lawrence, ed. W. T. Andrews (Coral Gables, Florida: University of

Miami Press), p. 16. 3 / "Mother Love," The 'New York Times, 21 Sept. 1913, in Moynahan, pp . 428,430. 4 The Athenaeum, Feb. 10, 1911 in Andrews, p. 14.

/ 5 Herbert J. Seligmann, D. H. Lawrence: An American Interpretation

(1924; rpt. Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 1971), pp. 4, 10. I 6 No rman Mailer, in Lawrence and Women ed. Anne Smith (London: Vision ,

1978)' p. 187. 7 Julian Moynahan, in Anne Smith, p. 134. 8 1 Mary Freeman, D. H. Lawrence: A Basic Study of His Ideas (Gainesville:

University of Florida Press, 1955), p. 220. / 9 Freeman, p. 17 .

.., 10 D. H. Lawrence, Lady Chatterley ' s Lover ( 19 28 ; rpt. New York:

Signet, 1962) p. 231. All further reference to this work will appear in the text.

5 6

11 / D. H. Lawrence, Miscellany ed. Harry T. Moore (Carbondale: South

Illinois University Press, 1959), p. 295.

~12 Keith Sagar, The Art of D. H. Lawrence (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1966), p. 166. 13 Sagar p. 117.

--1'4 David Cavitch, D. H. Lawrence and The New World (New York:

Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 19.

A s Tony Slade, D. H. Lawrence (New York : Arco, 1970), p. 41 .

--16 Hilary Simpson ed. D. H. Lawrence and Feminism (DeKall, Ill.:

Northern Illinois Univers~ty Presses, 1982), p. 147 . ./l7 Baruch Hochman, Another Ego (Colombia, S. C.: University of

South Carolina Press, 1970) p. 152. ;' 18 Scott Sanders, "Society and Idealogy in Sons And Lovers," in Five Major Novels (New York: Viking, 1974), p. 47. / 19 In Smith, p. 176. l 20 Kate Millett, Sexual Politics (New York: Garden City,

Doubleday, 1970), p. 238. 21 Millett , p. 238. / 22 Simpson, p. 110 . .1'23 Simpson, p. 115. CHAPTER I: Early Criticism (1911-1940's)

D. H. Lawrence began his literary career with the publication of The White

Peacock in 1911. A central and most striking feature of this book and Law­ rence's later novels is its emphasis on male and female principles. Lawrence's sarcaBm towards women is subtly hidden behind his introduction of the modern liberated woman. The farmer's daughters in The lVhite Peacock are intelligent, and this is the beginning .of the idea that Lawrence was in favor of women's liberation. The critics were influenced and totally misled by Lawrence's modern heroine, and, therefore, they failed to contemplate his true notion, wh ich was ma l e supremacy and female inferiority and submissiveness . This misunderstanding was at its peak in Lawrence's early literary career. The early period of Lawrence criticism indicates that he favored the modern liberated woman and defended women's rights. Middleton Murry, Lawrence's close friend and critic, wrote the most supportive criticism. Murry 's per­ ception of Lawrence's work even indicated that the author felt inferior to women and that women were leaders in his novels. Other critics of his period had, more or less, the same idea. Some critics even regarded Lawrence as a feminist who placed women above men. An anonymous critic in 1911, when

The White Peacock was published, was so misled that he said: "The novel is a characteristic specimen of the modern fiction which is being written by the 1 feminine hand." It is true that Meg and Lettie represent a new generation of women, women who read and think rationally and are no longer ignorant of

7 8

what goes on in the world besides housekeeping, cooking , and raising

children. However, Lawrence expresses his idea of a "perfec t" woman in Meg

not when she is reading or meditating, but when she is "bathing the dark 2 baby." He then states that "a woman who has her child in her arms is a

tower of strength, a beautiful, unassailable tower of strength" (WP, p. 289).

In the final pages of the novel Lawrence provokes an argument between George

and Lettie, a quarrel which ends in Lettie's defeat: "'I think,' said he,

'marriage is more of a duel than a duet. One party wins and takes the other

captive, slave, servant--what you like. It is so, more or less'"(WP, p.298).

George then says: "It must be one way or another." To which Lettie responds,

"Are you sure it must be so final?" George is now angry: "Quite sure!"

And Lettie "bowed her head in assent" (\.JP, p. 300).

Lawr ence's most successful novel, Sons and Lovers, has been treated as

an autobiography. When the book was first published, critics regarded its

theme as one of female dominance. A 1913 review in The New York Times states

t hat "Mrs. Morel belonged a trifle higher up in the social scale, having made

one of those 'romantic' marriages with which the old-f ashioned sentimental

novel used to end, and with which the modern realistic one so frequently 3 be gins." It is true that Mrs. Morel has lived on the "hillside of Bestwood,"

and now she has to descend to the "Bottoms," the miners' dwellings. But she soon adapts to her new environment and even enjoys "a kind of aristocracy among the other women of the 'between' houses, because her rent was five shillings and sixpence instead of five shillings a week. ,,4 Lawrence em- phasizes her superiority over her husband by stating that "no other woman

looked such a lady as she did" (SL, p. 4). Lawrence also presents her as an intelligent woman: "She was clever in leading folk to talk. She loved ideas , and was considered very intellectual" (SL, p. 9). She bears child after 9

after child despite her resentment of her husband. Her unwanted pregnancies exhibit her as Lawrence's passive and submissive woman. She has accepted male superiority and even "the thought of being the mother of men is warming

to her heart" (SL, p. 31). Her life revolves around her chores and her children. She suffers the consequences of her husband's heavy drinking. His drunken rage frightens her one night, but she is unable to defend herself

"panting, he pushed her roughly to the outer door, and thrust her forth, slotting the bolt behind her with a bang" (SL, p. 23). She simply accepts the fact that her husband is the master and she must be subservient to him.

Thus she continues to be obedient, but she focuses all her love and atten­ tion on her children. When William, her oldest son, dies, her love is completely devoted to Paul. It is this love that has been mistaken for dominance by most critics. A 1913 review of the book presents her as a triumphant individual who "clings to him jealously, fighting against the younger woman's power, and succeeding in holding the pair apart. With his mother's death the son's life loses value and coherence; he is left, indeed, 5 derelict. Her character is a real triumph."

It is not Mrs. Morel who holrnPaul and Miriam apart; it is once again

Paul's (Lawrence's) rejection of self-willed women. Miriam is intellectual and speaks her mind and does not want to submit. "She was very much dis­ satisfied with her lot" and when Paul asks: "Don't you like being at home?"

She responds: "Who would? What is it? I'm all day cleaning what the boys make just as bad in five minutes. I don't want to be at home." And "I want to do something. I want a chance like anybody else. Why should I, because

I'm a girl, be kept at home and not allowed to be anything? What chance have

I?" (SL, p. 154). This puzzles Paul, and he becomes even more perplexed when Miriam refuses to have sexual relations with him. Paul's image of the 10

ideal ~•oman is his mother, a woman who does not question the authority of man

and submits to him. Miriam loves him, and always wants "to embrace him,"

but only "so long as he did not want her" (SL, p. 189). Yet Miriam finally

yields to him, because as far as Lawrence is concerned woman must yield .

Middleton Murry's opinion about Paul's and Miriam's relationship is that

Paul's desire (male desire) "is not for the woman, but for release through the 6 woman; and the woman gives not from desire but from pity." Although Paul enjoys sexual relations with Miriam, he soon shuns her and accuses her of being incapable of loving, merely because he cannot absorb her hunger for equality with the male. "You don't want to love--you aren't positive, you're negative. You absorb, absorb, as if you must fill yourself with love, because you've got a shortage somewhere" (SL, p. 218). Murry mistakes Lawrence's hostility towards women for a feeling of inferiority towards them. He writes:

"Always, on the biological level, he felt himself inferior to the woman: he 7 was radically conscious that as a male he was a failure." He feels that 8 Lawrence fears women and always yields "himself to the woman's leading."

But "woman's leading" does not exist in Lawrence's politics. His heroines are never leaders, and even though they start out as leaders, they always end up as followers of men.

Banford and March in The Fox are other examples of Lawrence's stereotypes.

They are two women who run a farm and seem to be prospering until Henry in­ 9 vades their privacy. "'There wants a man about the place,' said the youth."

Herbert Seligmann says: "The dark sensuous nature of these women is refined into a sharp and unrelenting will, like Banford's ... They are of women today, 10 flesh of their flesh and of their spiritual pattern." But Banford's will does not rule. Once Henry enters the two girls ' lives, he sets his mind to remain there: "he thought to himself it would be a good thing to have this 11

place for his own. And then the thought entered him shrewdly: 'Why not marry March?'" (FOX, p. 130). Banford observes his change of attitude and sees right through him: "that's what he wants: to come and be master here"

(FOX, p. 144). And that is why she must die, because there must never be an obstacle in the way of the man's ambitions. Henry kills Banford unmercifully so that he can marry March and fulfill his desire: "it was he who was to live.

The thorn was drawn out of his bowels. So he put her down gently. She was dead." Thus, "He had won ... he was glad, he had won" (FOX, p. 174). The only thing that remained to be carried out now was to bring March to her knees, wh ich didn't seem to be too difficult. "He did not want her to watch any more, to see any more, to understand any more. He wanted to veil her woman's spirit, as Orientals veil the woman's face. He wanted her to commit herself to him, yield, blindly pass away out of all her strenuous consciousness.

He wanted to take away her consciousness, and make her just his woman"

(FOX, p. 178). March wants to resist submitting , but

she was so tired, so tired, like a child that wants to go to sleep, but fights against sleep as if sleep were death. She seemed to stretch her eyes wider in the obstinate effort and tension of keeping awake ...• ~he would know. She would consider and judge and decide. She would have the reins of her own life between her own hands. She would be an independent woman to the last. But she was so tired, so tired of everything. And sleep seemed near. (FOX, p. 178)

Her resistance is futile, because "she would go to sleep. She would close her eyes at last and give in to him" (FOX, p. 179). Lawrence's resentment toward the "leadership" of women is exhibited in these lines:

Then he would have all his own life as a young man and a male, and she would have all her own life as a woman and a female. There would be no more of this awful straining. She would not be a man any more, 12

an independent woman with a man's responsibility. Nay, even the responsibility for her own soul she would have to commit to him. He knew it was so ... waiting for the surrender. (FOX, p. 179).

And this surrender occurs shortly; "her eyelids dropped with the slow motion,

sleep weighing them unconscious" (FOX, p. 179).

Kate Leslie, in The Plumed Serpent, is another Lawrentian stereotype.

Th rough her, Lawrence displays his cynicism toward the modern, independent

woman . She, to~ proves to be dependent upon the power of the man after all.

This is a fact that has been overlooked by critics. Lawrence claims that

women are merely patterns of what men want them to be, regardless of their

intelligence and their new roles in modern society. He says: "Capable men

produce the capable woman i deal. Doctors produce the capable nurses. Busi-

ness men produce the capable secretary. And so you get all sorts. There is,

also, the eternal secret ideal of men--the prostitute. Lots of women live up 11 to this idea: just because men want them to." Kate and later Connie

Chatterley gradually fall into this category. The Plumed Serpent begins with

the introduction of Kate as a very courageous, sympathetic, alert, and sensi-

tive woman who is traveling alone. Kate is able to perceive the different aspects of society she is living in. But, of course, Lawrence does not intend

to create her· as a triumphant figure. She falls in love with Cipriano, a

Mexican revolutionist, and in order to find happiness in her relationship with him she must lose her individuality and totally submit to his will. To

Lawrence, a woman must function as a means for fulfilling male desire.

Women are just that, "they only have phases." And "as the wheel of history 12 goes round women become modern'' but they are still just women, dependent on men no matter how independent they believe themselves to be. And this is precisely the idea that he is trying to prove in The Plumed Serpent. Law- 13

renee is only satisfied when at the end of the novel Kate admits her inability

to cope with life, alone:

Without Cipriano to touch me and limit me and sub- merge my will, I shall become a horrible, elderly female . . . I ought to be glad if a man will limit me with a strong will and a warm touch. Because what I call my greatness, and the vastness of the Lord behind me, lets me fall through a hollow floor of nothingness, once there is no man's hand there, to hold me warm and limited. Ah yes! Rather than become elderly and a bit grisly, I w131 make my submission; as far as I need, and no further.

However, she finally has to 'come to make a sort of submission" (PS, p. 443)

and is only glad to be "wanted" by Cipriano. Cipriano's superiority over

Kate is displayed when "He was standing erect and alert, like a little

fighting male, and his eyes glowed black and uncannily as he met her wet,

limpid glance. Yes, she was a bit afraid of him too, with his inhuman black

eyes." Yet she pleads: "You don't want me to go, do you?" (PS, p . 444).

And her final plea to Cipriano indicates her willingness to submit: "you wo n't let me go!" (PS, p. 445). However, Lawrence is too subtle to make her

a prisoner, she is free to leave, yet she ponders "and then what!" (PS, p. 439).

Ursula in The Rainbow represents the totally modern, educated woman. She

struggles to retain her independence and her individuality, and she succeeds

to a limited degree, but she, too, despite her struggles finally submits to

Birkin in Lawrence's next novel, Women In Love . Middleton Murry says:

"No doubt Mr. Lawrence intends to bring us to a new conception of individuali-

ty . we should have thought that we should be able to distinguish between male and female, at least. But no! Remove the names, remove the sedulous

catalogues of unncessary clothing--a new element and a significant one, this,

in our author's work--and man and woman are indistinguishable as octopods in 14 an aquarium tank." This is not true because the women of the first two 14

generations are merely housewives, and function as instruments in the house- hold. Therefore, there cannot be any question of distinguishing between the sexes. Ursula as a child begins to detest the role of the woman:

as she grew a little older it became a nightmare. When she saw, later, a Rubens picture with storms of naked bodies, and found this was called fecundity, she shuddered, and the world became abhorrent to her. She knew as a child what it was to live amidst storms of babies, in the heat and swelter of fecundity. And as a child, she was against her mol~er, she craved for some spirituality and stateliness.

Ursula's defiant attitude begins at an early stage of her life. She abhors being the weaker sex, and wants to rebel. On the occasion when she leaves the door of the parish room unlocked and the children sneak in and get hurt, she is slapped by her father, Tom Brangwen: "The cloth stung, for a moment the girl was as if stunned. Then she remained motionless, her face closed and stubborn. But her heart was blazing" (TR, p. 265). The incident gives

Tom a sort of satisfaction, "a pleasurable pain filled in him, a sense of triumph and easy power" (TR, p. 265). Ursula would not cry and would not display her helplessness in front of him, but "she never forgot" (TR, p. 265).

Ursula finds happiness and satisfaction when she moves on to Grammar School.

This would be her first step toward her longed-for independence. "There, each girl was a lady. There, she was going to walk among free souls, her comates and her equals, and all petty things would be put away" (TR, p. 266).

In there "she fancied the air was finer," and when she discovers the signifi- cance of mathematics, "she felt that she had grasped something, that she was liberated into an intoxicating air, rare and unconditioned" (TR, p. 267).

Middleton Murry says: "The Rainbow is the story of Lawrence's sexual failure .

The two men, who have succumbed to the women are one man--himself . . "; then he states that "Ursula, the woman, becomes the protagonist; the man is 15

16 secondary, an attrl.bute of the woman." This statement might confirm Frieda

Lawrence's comment about her husband that "In his heart of hearts he dreaded

women, ul7 b ut lt . certaln . .1 y is not accurate because it is Ursula who gives in

to Skrebensky. He wishes to "set a bond round her and compel her!"

(TR, p. 318). She knovs this and when "an obstinacy in him made him put his

arms round her she submitted" (TR, p. 319). Murry perceives

Skrebensky as the male that succumbs, butthis definitely is far from Lawrence's

essential intention: "She exerted all her ordinary, warm self, she touched

him, she did him homage of loving awareness. And gradually he came back to

her, another man. She was soft and winning and caressing. She was his ser-

vant, his adoring slave." (TR, p. 321) Murry also reflects that "Ursula

Brangwen of The Rainbow, is in fact a completely incredible character. She

is the woman who accepts the man's vision of herself; accepts it, believes in . ul8 it and obeys it. Sh e, t h ere f ore, b ecomes a monster, a c hlmera. Ursula's

struggles to maintain her status as an independent woman is what makes her a

"monster" to Murry. Her desire and longing for equality with men annoys

Skrebensky:

The male in him was scotched by the knowledge that she was not under his spell nor his influence. He wanted to go away from her. He rested in the knowledge that tomorrow he was going away, his life was really elsewhere--his life was elsewhere--the centre of his life was not what she would have. She was different-­ there was a breach between them. They were hostile worlds. (TR, p. 329)

Thus Ursula turns to the love and affection of Winifred Inger (her teacher), who is also interested in the women's movement. This short affair leaves

Ursula with a feeling of shame. When they start their love affair, Winifred

tries to convince Ursula of the dangers and uselessness of the men; but in the

end she, too, gives in to a man. She meets and marries Ursula's uncle, Tom, 16

and settles happily in his "large new house of red bricks" (TR, p. 344).

She can no longer recall her own statements that man is "a meaningless lump--

a standing machine, a machine out of work" (TR, p. 348). And now Winifred

Inger will be Winifred Brangwen "and of the same sort as himself. She would make a good companion. She was his mate" (TR, p. 351). But Ursula decides that she would try to insist in her own home, on the right of women to take equal place with men in the field of action and work" (TR, p. 353) and "she would give in to nobody" (TR, p. 356). She wants "something else besides house\vork and hanging about" (TR, p. 358), but she can't find happiness in this. Her career as a teacher is a failure, and the book ends with Ursula watching the rainbow over the city as a symbol of hope for a new beginning:

"She saw in the rainbow the earth's new architecture, the old brittle corruption of houses and factories swept away, the world built up in a living fabric of truth, fitting to the over-arching heaven" (TR, p. 495). However,

Ursula's image as the independent individual gradually changes in Women In

Love. The portrayal of Ursula in The Rainbow supposedly demonstrates the intellectual equality of men and women. But since, according to Lawrence, such equality is not functional and should not exist, Ursula remains unful- filled, but hopeful. Thus, in order to end her frustrations, she falls in love with Birkin (in Women In Love). Middleton Murry's opinion about this book is that "manifestly 'the pure relationship' with a woman is what Birkin 19 attains with Ursula." He also conunents that "Only in Women In Love does

Ursula Brangwen really come alive; and then she is manifestly her mother,

Anna Brangwen, continued from the point at which her imaginary child-bearing 20 began." Bir-kin and Gerald are the epitome of Lawrence's male chauvinistic characters, and they do not try to conceal their feelings toward women.

Birkin says: "The right thing for mistreses: keep them. And the right thing 17

21 for wives: live under the same roof with them." Gerald displays his power and authority when Ursula and her sister, Gudrun, are watching him

"spellbound" at the railroad tracks as he tries to dominate his mare to overcome her fear of the locomotive:

The locomotive, as if waiting to see what could be done, put on the brakes, and back came the trucks rebounding on the iron buffers, striking like horrible cymbals, closing nearer and nearer in frightful strident con­ cussions. The mare opened her mouth and rose slowly, as if lifted up on a wind of terror. Then suddenly her fore­ feet struck out, as she convulsed herself utterly away from the horror. Back she went, and the two girls clung to each other, feeling she must fall backwards on top of him. But he leaned forward, his face shining with fixed amusement, bearing her back to the mark. (WL, p. 103).

The mare symbolizes woman, and the man's triumph in this scene reveals Law- renee's hidden desire to overcome women even with force. Ursula wants to know why he made the animal stand all that time at the crossing. Gerald's reply once again demonstrates Lawrence's feelings toward women: "I have to use her, And if I'm going to be sure of her at all, she'll have to learn to stand noises." Ursula protests: "Why should she? She is a living creature, why should she stand anything, just because you choose to make her?

She has as much right to her own being, as you have to yours." And Gerald answers: "There I disagree, I consider that mare is there for my use. Not because I bought her, but because that is natural order. It is more natural for a man to take a horse and use it as he likes, than for him to go down on his knees to it, begging it to do as it wishes, and to fulfill its own mar- velous nature" (WL, p. 130). This key passage demonstrates Lawrence's feel- ings: "And woman is the same as horses: two wills set in opposition inside her. With one will, she wants to subject herself utterly. With the other she wants to bolt, and pitch her rider to perdition" (WL, p. 132). Although 18

Ursula laughs and says that she is a "bolter," the course of the nov~l makes her want "to subject herself" to Birkin, who claims "Ultimately, there is no love" (~.JL, p. 137). He then tells Ursula : "What I want is a strange conjunc- tion with you--not meeting and mingling, ...but an equilibrium, a pure balance of two single beings:--as the stars balance each other" (~, p. 139).

And when Ursula inquires whether "a man has very little need for a woman now, has he?" Birkin explicitly reveals his true feelings : "In outer things, maybe

--except to share his bed and bear his children" (~, p. 143). Yet Ursula begins to submit and knock "her head on the ground" before Birkin.

The caprices of Mellors and the sensuality and the lust of Lady Chatter- ley's Lover have been misinterpreted as a tender love story by many critics.

Many critics fail to observe the passivity of Connie Chatterley and her sub- mission, not only to her lover, Mellors, but to her crippled husband, Clifford .

Sigrid Undset writes that man is "in flight from the woman who tries to tamper with him, to kill and devour him; woman is a fury who rages against man for 22 reducing her to subjection and who despises him when he fails to do so ."

She also says: "The faun, Mellors, is forced into the defensive. He tries to defend his own and Connie Chatterley's lives against the mechanization of 23 existence and against the celebral activity of them both." Undset reflects that "Lawrence's perpetual harping on the sexual act, ... to his sensitive soul meant communion, holy matrimony, the blood contact between man and 24 woman." Lawrence is not portraying the modern, independent woman in Lady

Chatterley's Lover (as most critics indicate), but the book reflects Lawrence's ugly image of the woman . He starts Connie out as an educated, liberated woman . She is "the daughter of a Scotch R.A ., a robust and intelligent glr. 1 , .. 25 but from the very beginning of the book, she is totally submissive.

First Michaelis (Clifford's friend) makes love to her, and "to her it meant 19 nothing except that she gave herself to him" (LCL, p. 25). And then Clifford wants her to have a baby by another man since he is impotent. "It would almost be a good thing if you had a child by another man . . . If we had the child

to rear, it would be our own, and it would carry on. Don't you think it's worth considering?" (LCL, p. 41). Clifford encourages her to "go out and have a love affair" (LCL. p. 42). And the careful plot of the story places

Connie and the gamekeeper face to face right after the above mentioned dis- cussion or rather Clifford's order. Edmund Wilson presents this as a sort of mutual "understanding between Sir Clifford and his wife Connie, that since he cannot give her a child himself, he will accept an illegitimate child as his heir. But Connie has finally reached a point where she feels that she can no longer stand Sir Clifford, with his invalidism, his arid intelligence and his 26 obstinate class consciousness. She has fallen in love with the gamekeeper."

Aldous Huxley says that to Lawrence, woman "is the door for our in-going and our out-coming. In her we go back to the Father; but like the witnesses of t h e trans f iguration, not o f d ivine ot h erness, b ut o f very h uman evl"1 . ,17

Huxley attempts to convert Lawrence's concept of love into a divine affair, but Lawrence's presentation of love in his novels and particularly in Lady

Chatterley's Lover is mainly lust and voluptuousness. Huxley claims that

Lawrence had a "horror" of "all Don Juans, all knowing sensualists and conscious libertines! (About the time he was writing Lady Chatterley's

Lover he read the memoirs of Casanova, and was profoundly shocked) .... To use love in this way, consciously and deliberately seemed to Lawrence wrong, 28 almost a blasphemy." However, what exists between Connie and Mellors is nothing but a physical attraction. From the very moment of their acquain- tance, Mellors rules and Connie obeys. "Sit 'ere then a bit, and warm yer,' he said." "She obeyed him. He had that curious kind of protective authority 20

she obeyed at once ... She was being looked after, so she had to submit" (LCL, p. 82).

When Connie enters Mellors' life he reveals his abhorrence of the self- willed woman: "He dreaded her will, her female will, and her modern female insistency. And above all he dreaded her cool, upper-class impudence of having her own way" (LCL, p. 83). He is angry because she has "awakened the sleeping dogs of old voracious anger in him, anger against the self- willeclfemale ... and she was angry against the self-willed male" (LCL, p. 84). One must give in, and naturally it has to be Connie, because Law- renee's politics cannot allow the male to submit. But before doing so, she must first have her husband's complete approval: "Would you really like me to have a child one day?" Clifford answers: "I shouldn't mind, if it made no difference between us." Connie wants to know "no difference to what?"

Clifford's response to this last question amazes her, but one has to realize that even an impotent male must retain his authority, power and dignity:

"To you and me; to our love for one another. If it's going to affect that; then I'm all against it. Why, I might even one day have a child of my own!"

(LCL, p. 103). Nevertheless, Connie knows that she has his consent.

In the affair with Mellors, Connie is the passive party. Even though

Mellors is below her class, he is still the male and therefore the master.

"You lie there," he ordered, and "with a queer obedience, she lay down on the blanket" (LCL, p. 108). What follows exhibits Lawrence's concept of love and the so-called "union between male and female." Middleton Murry considers 29 Connie as a vision or image of the new woman. He claims that with Lawrence

" t h e man~woman bond ... shoul d b e supreme. .. 30 But one finds it complicated to observe this "bond" in the love scene that Lawrence depicts: 21

Then she felt the soft, groping helplessly desirous hand touching her body, feeling for her face ...• She lay q~ite still, in a sort of sleep, in a sort of dream. Then she quivered as she felt his hand groping softly, yet with queer thwarted clumsiness among her clothing. Yet the hand knew, too, how to unclothe her where it wanted . . . . She lay still on a kind of sleep, always in a kind of sleep. The activity, the orgasm was his, all his; she could strive for herself no more ....Then she wondered, why? Why was this necessary? vJhy had it lifted a great cloud from her and given her peace? Was it real? (LCL, pp. 108-09).

Yet she must reason with herself before she can totally submit: "Her tormen- ted modern-woman's brain still had no rest. Was it real? And she knew, if she gave herself to the man, it was nothing. . And at last, she could bear the burden of herself no more. She was to be had for the taking. To be had for the taking" (LCL. p. 109). Lawrence emphasizes that women are to be taken by repeating the last phrase. Mellors is pleased with her vulnerability, and apparently, it is only his satisfaction that matters as far as Lawrence is concerned. "He thought with infinite tenderness of the woman. Poor forlorn thing, she was nicer than she knew ....Poor thing, she too had some of the vulnerability of the wild hyacinths, she wasn't all tough rubber-goods and platinum, like the modern girl .•.. But he would protect her with his heart for a little while" (LCL, p. 111). And thus another one of Lawrence's women characters gives in to the male and seeks his protection. Early critics praised Connie and other heroines as liberated and independent. NOTES

/ 1 Andrews, p. 14 2 D. H. Lawrence, The White Peacock (1911; rpt. London: Heineman,

1974), p. 273. All further references to the novel will be from this edition

and will be made within the text. 3 ' In Moynahan, p. 428. 4 D. H. Lawrence, Sons And Lovers (1913; rpt. New York: Penguin, 1976),

p. 2. All further references to this book will appear in the text. 5 In Moynahan p. 424. 6 Middleton Murry, Son of Woman (New York: Kraus, 1972), p. 35. 7 Murry, p. 307. 8 Murry, p. 76. 9 D. H. Lawrence, 4 Short Novels of D. H. Lawrence (New York: Viking,

1965), p. 124. All further references to this book will appear in the text. 10 Seligmann, p. 6. 11 D. H. Lawrence, Assorted Articles (1930; rpt. Freeport, New York:

Books for Libraries Press, 1968), p. 38. 12 Lawrence, Assorted Articles, pp. 45,46. 13 Lawrence, The Plumed Serpent (1925; rpt. New York: Knopf, 1963), pp. 439,440. All further references to this book will appear in the text.

22 23

14 In Andrews, p. 22. 15 Lawrence, The Rainbow (1976; rpt. New York: Penguin, 1977),

pp. 262-63. All further references to this book will appear in the text. 16 Murry, p. 89. 17 In Moynahan, p. 486 . 18 Murry, p. 91. 19 Murry, p. 120. 20 Murry, p. 91. 21 Lawrence, Women In Love (1920; rpt. New York: Viking, 1973). p . 89. All further refer~nces to this book will appear in the text. 22 Quoted from Men, Women and Places (New York: Knopf, 1939), in

The Achievement of D. H. Lawrence ed. Fredrick J. Hoffman and Harry T. Moore

(Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1953), p. 54. 23 In Hoffman and Moore, p. 57. 24 In Hoffman and Moore, p. 61. 25 Edmund Wilson in Hoffman and Moore, p. 185. 26 In Hoffman and Moore, p. 186. 27 In Andrews, p. 42. 28 In Andrews, p. 43. 29 Murry, p. xvi. 30 Murry, p. xxvi . CHAPTER II: 1950's to Early 1970's

The early nineteen-fifties is the beginning of modern Lawrentian criti­

cism. In this period, critics discuss the power of woman, the idea of the

union of male and female, and the reawakening of woman in Lawrence's novels.

Harry T. Moore is the most supportive of Lawrence's ideas. Moore emphasizes

the idea of the union of the male and the female in Lawrentian themes. He

regards Lady Chatterley's Lover as the story of reawakening of a woman and 1 indicates that the book is "exclusively a romance."

About the idea of the power of woman Eugene Goodheart writes: "The re­ versal of roles between man and woman in the modern world becomes in Law­

rence's paranoid version of it a ferocious battle between the sexes in which

the male fights desperately for his dear life. The female, except in Law­ 2 rence's ideal remaking of her, is regarded as predatory." The male, however, ahvays triumphs. David Cavitch says: "Gertude Morel governs the plot of the novel. and her power of will is the chief human control over the actions 3 of all her family and over the fates of those who come in contact with it."

But throughout the novel Mrs. Morel remains passive and defenseless. She has no control over the actions of her husband and puts up with his brutality. In one of his moments of rage and intoxication he injures her and she cannot de- fend herself:

24 25

He jerked at the drawer in his excitement. It fell, cut sharply on his skin, and on the reflex he flung it at her.

One of the corners caught her brow as the shallow drawer crashed into the fireplace. She swayed, almost fell stunned from her chair. To her very soul she was sick; (SL, p.39)

Her only reaction at this moment is that she gathers up enough courage to tell him to "go mvay," while she is struggling to keep her presence of mind.

If she concentrates on her love for her childre~it is because they are all she has to love, and even though they are born unloved, she wants to make it up to them. When William is born, she holds the infant in her arms "A wave of hot love went over her to the infant. She held it close to her face and breast. With all her force, with all her soul, she would make up to it for having brought it into the world unloved. She would love it all the more now it was here; carry it in her love" (SL, p. 37). T. B. Tomlinson writes:

"Lawrence himself is on the side of the young wife against the drunken hus- 4 band." He also says that she is much more intelligentthan her husband;

"Certainly, her way of living tends towards an essential refinement and an educated intelligence beyond the miner's range--this is, of course, developed 5 in later novels in terms of Birkin, Ursula, Gudrun and others." It is true that these women are sensible, rational and educated, but they all end up as inferior creatures, subservient to their male counterparts. That is why a 6 statement such as "Gertrude Morel is a powerful woman" seems out of place.

Mrs. Morel's life is ruined by the male power, and it ends by the will of the male. Only this time, the male happens to be her beloved son, Paul, who is the center of her life. She has loved and cared for him more than anything or anyone else in her life, and now she must die because Paul wills this

"release." Paul is aware of his mother's passion for life: "She won't die 26

... , The parson was in the other day. i~hink!'he said to her, ~you will

have your mother and father, and your sister, and your son, in the Other

Land.' And she said: 'I have done without them for along time, and can do

without them for a long time, and can do without them now. It is the living

I want, not the dead ' She wants to live even now" (SL, p. 388). Paul then

goes on: "She's got such a will, it seems as if she would never go --never!"

He is displeased because "She simply don't give in." and finally he betrays

his feelings: "I wish she'd die!" (SL, p. 388). Thus Mrs . Morel dies from

the morphia that Paul puts in her nnight milk.'' Her death is her total sub­

mission, and once again the power of the man rules and defeats the woman .

Mary Freeman points to this incident and claims: "It was in his mother's 7 reluctance to die that Paul saw the essential flaw in her view of life."

Apparently this flaw justifies Paul's crime and gives him permission to take his mother 's life! Paul is an example of Lawrence's male character who seeks

total submission in the female.

Paul's male egoism has been misinterpreted and has been blamed on Mrs.

Morel by Seymour Betskey: "As the inevitable result of his mother's example,

Paul wants a woman who opposes him, fights him, questions him, challenges his 8 maleness into vigorous proof." But Paul, like all Lawrentian male stereo-

types, wants a submissive woman, who must not oppose him in any way. He

tells Miriam: "Here, I say, you seem to forget I'm your boss. It just

occurs to me" (SL, p. 266). Miriam wants to know the meaning of this state­ ment, and he simply explains: "It means I've got a right to boss you"

(SL, p. 266). Later when he leaves her and seeks comfort in Clara's arms he explains to her why he left Miriam: "She seems to draw me and draw me, and she shouldn't leave a single hair of me free to fall out and blow away

--she'd keep it." "But you like to be kept." "No, ... I don't. I wish 27

it would be normal, give and take--like me and you. I want a woman to keep

me, but not in her pocket" (SL, p. 277). Yet the affair with Clara is not a

case of "give and take"; it is Clara who submits totally and never questions

Paul.

Paul's male egoism begins at a very early age when he jumps "crash into

the face" of his sister's doll, Arabella (SL, p. 57). And then he wants to

"make a sacrifice"of the doll. "Let's burn her." and here Paul displays his

spontaneous desire for the sacrifice of the female:

He made an altar of bricks, pulled some of the shavings out of Arabella's body, put the waxen fragments into the hollow face, poured on a little paraffin, and set the whole thing alight. He watched with wicked satisfaction the drops of wax melt off the broken forehead of Arabella, and drop like sweat into the flame. So long as the stupid big doll burned he rejoiced in silence. At the end he poked among the embers with a stick, fished out the arms and legs, all blackened, and smashed them under stones. (SL, pp. 57-58).

Here he declared with pure joy and satisfaction: "That's the sacrifice of

Missis Arabella, An' I'm glad there's nothing left of her" (SL, p. 58).

The desire prevails in Paul, and he wants to crush the women in his life. He makes a sacrifice of his mother and finds the same kind of pleasure as he did in the sacrifice of Arabella. His retreat from Miriam is not caused by "the absence of real sensual" feelings, but rather is a result of his failure to bring her down to her knees. Although he succeeds to some degree, he is not satisfied. She tolerates Paul's different moods of rage or gentleness when he is giving her Algebra lessons. Once he becomes so impatient that "he threw the pencil in her face. . . She turned her face slightly aside."

Yet, "she never reproached him or was angry with him" (SL, p. 157). Miriam acknowledges the fact that she is not equal with Paul or with her brothers, and wants to rebel: "After all, ... if the land were nationalized, Edgar 28

and Paul and I would be just the same" (SL, p. 157). Paul's friendship with Clara does not last very long either. In the beginning of their friendship Paul is under the impression that Clara needs his help: "He experienced a thrill of joy, thinking she might need his help. She seemed denied and deprived of so much" (SL, p. 262). Although Clara yields to him sexually, she, too, turns out to be dissatisfied with the women's situation, but she is not strong enough to join the women's movement. Therefore, when

Paul realizes that Clara is not totally submissive either, he leaves her.

The idea that Lawrence "emphasizes" the power of women has been attri- buted to the influence of his wife, Frieda. David Cavitch says: "As Law- renee re-created the stresses of his family relations and again suffered through some of the worst episodes of his past, her empathy gave him another avenue to the truth of experience. With generous egotism he began advising other young writers and artists to rely more on the sensitivity and power of women. He felt that the works of his contemporaries were flawed by ignoring 9 or falsifying the femininereality." It is hard to believe that any woman could inspire Lawrence to the point of influencing his ideas. In his rela- tion with Frieda, in spite of the belief that she was the more powerful,

Lawrence's will ruled. What follows indicates the way Lawrence treated

Frieda or any woman who dared to oppose him:

"If you want to know what Lawrence was doing on Friday 5 May 1916, you will find one part of the answer in a letter the following Thursday, from Katherine Mansfield to S. S. Koteliansky: i.e. Lawrence was engaged in an appalling row with Frieda, which started from a remark of Frieda's about Shelley's 'To a Skylark'. Lawrence screamed at her and, according to Katherine Mansfield. ended up beating her and pulling her hair."

Katherine Mansfield also mentions that Lawrence and Frieda quarrelled constantly. She mentions another quarrel scene when the two "are roaring 29

at each other, and he is pulling out Frieda's hair and saying 'I'll cut

your throat, you bitch' and Frieda is running up and down the road screaming 11 for 'Jack' to save her!!" These incidents also refute Draper's comment

that "Frieda gave him a completely new conception of the vital, independent 12 woman and of the life-and-death battle of the sexes."

Another idea dealt with by the critics of this period is the union of

the male and the female, that Lawrence understood women and treated men and

women on equal terms. Draper speculates on the idea of union and blood 13 intimacy in Lawrence's novels. He supports Lawrence's idea that the male

and female are not created equal. Therefore, the union of the two should be

a privilege to the female. All Lawrentian marriages (in the novels) occur

only after the triumph of the male over the female. Lawrentian heroes do not marry the heroines unless they are certain of their subservience, total

obedience and submissiveness. The marriage between Captain Hepburn and

Hannele in The Captain's Doll is another example of the female surrender to

the will and the power of the male. The Captain first liquidates his wife, who is an obstacle, and then he sets out to manipulate Hannele and to turn her into the subservient female that is his ideal. F. R. Leavis perceives

a "challenge to 'personality'" in The Captain's Doll. This "challenge"

exists in the ''valuation of 'personality' in the accepted understanding of ,14 personal relations, especially those between a man and a woman. But this

understanding of personal relations" does not exist in the story. Hannele, who is an intellectual woman, always ponders, and her perception of Hepburn's

remarks about their relationship leads her to suspect that he wants to

"bully" her: "What does he want to bully me into? Does he want me to love him? " And at this question she "rests." "She decided that what he wanted was that she should love him. And this thought flattered her vanity 30

and her pride and appeased her wrath against him. She felt quite molli­

fied towards him" (CD, p. 250). Although she "glows" with triumph at this

thought, she is "just as confident that she was not going to be bullied.

She would love him; probably she would: most probably she did already. But

she was not going to be bullied by him in any way whatsoever. No, he must go

down on his knees to her if he wanted her love" (CD, p. 251). And the battle

of the sexes begins here; but little does she know that "in his silent, black,

overbearing soul, he wanted to compel her, he wanted to have power over her.

He wanted to make her love him so that he had power over her. He wanted to bully her, physically, sexually, and from the inside" (CD, p. 251). She senses this and her struggle to retain her individuality begins; "She wasn't going to give in to him and his black passion. No, never. It must be love on equal terms or nothing. For love on equal terms she was quite ready. She only waited for him to offer it." (CD, pp. 251-52). But "love on equal terms" is far from Lawrence's mind. Thus, Hannele is led to the point where she con­ templates Hepburn's true intentions. He even admits to her that love is not the basis of marriage: "I tried marriage once on a basis of love, and I must say it was a ghastly affair in the long run" (CD, p. 262). He then tells her:

"I want marriage. I want a woman to honour and obey me." This moment becomes the turning point in Hannele's life. She softens and begins to yield: "If you are quite reasonable and very sparing with your commands, ... And very careful how you give your orders" (CD, p. 262). But Hepburn reemphasizes that what he really wants is a sort of a patient Griselda," and that he wants "to be honoured and obeyed." He then declares: "I don't want love" (CD, p. 262).

Hannele can't surrender totally, but she is aware of the fact that Hepburn won't have her any other way. Her succumbing must be done of her own free will, and this is the subtle way in which Lawrence reduces women. Hannele's 31

questioning of the Captain's future plans leads her to her final defeat:

"Even suppose you were honoured and obeyed, I suppose all you've got to do is

to sit there like a sultan and sup it up: (CD, p. 264). Hepburn then tells

her of his plan to go to Africa: "Woman or no woman, I'm going to do that."

"And the woman? -- supposing you get the poor thing;"

"Why, she'll do all the honouring and obeying and housekeeping inciden­

tally, while you ride about in the day and stare at the moon at night"

(CD, p. 264). This last question remains unanswered. His final words to her are: "I shall leave to-morrow" (CD, p. 265). Accepting or refusing the pro­ posal is now left to Hannele. She loves him, but she is still reluctant to submit: "I'll come to Africa with you. But I won't promise to honour and obey you" (CD, p. 265). Yet his abrupt rejection brings her down to her knees and this is the climax of the novel and the triumph of male over female: "I don't \.;rant you otherwise." and Hannele pleads: "But won't you have me if I love you?"

"You must promise the other, ... it comes in the marriage service"

(CD, p. 265). And Hannele surrenders because this is the fate of the female, though her surrender is done discreetly: "Do you want to go away to-morrow?

Go if you do, but, anY\-.7ay, I won't say it before the marriage service. I needn't, need I?" (CD, p. 266). The fate of Hannele explicitly exhibits

Lawrence's viewpoint about women, and contradicts F. R. Leavis' statement that

"Lawrence's treatment of the relationship between men and women--his central interest--illustrates something in his art to indicate the distinctive nature 15 of which we have to use the word 'religious'."

Leavis also discusses the idea of the union of the male and female in

Lawrence's work. Regarding The Fox, he reflects that the story "is a study of human mating; of the attraction between a man and a woman that expresses 32

. . . . .,16 Th e pro f ound nee d s o f each an d h as lts meanlng ln a permanent unlon.

He also says that "the tale expresses Lawrence's profoundest insights into the

re 1 atlons. b etween men an d women . .,17 However, the picture that we get of Henry when he enters the lives of the two girls is that of a sly animal by whom the

idea of "union" or mutual relations is not even considered. If he wants to marry March, it is not "union" or love that he seeks, but only the estate.

Henry, whose interest lies first in gaining the farm and next in enslaving

March, speculates on the situation cautiously. He calculates that "He was older than she, really. He was master of her" (FOX, p. 130). But he must carry out his plans very carefully:

If he went to her plainly and said: "Miss March, I love you and want you to marry me," her inevitable answer would be: "Get out. I don't >vant any of that 'tomfoolery ."' ....He would have to catch her as you catch a deer or a woodcock when you go out shooting. It's no good walking out into the forest and saying to the deer: "Please fall to my gun." You have to be subtle and cunning and absolutely fatally ready. (FOX, pp . 129-30).

How, then, can one defend Leavis' statement? He says: "Again, what we have had presented to us by the whole scene is the fact of otherness: we cannot possess one another, and the possibility of valid intimate relations--the essential lasting relations between a man and a woman, for instance--depends . h .,18 on an acceptance o f t h lS trut . This is definitely not what Lawrence is portraying and not what Henry has in mind. He wants possession, not only of the estate but of the woman who will be his wife . "It was as a young hunter that he wanted to bring down March as his quarr~ to make her his wife ..

And March was suspicious as a hare" (FOX, p. 131). Nevertheless, Henry succeeds and March succumbs. But Leavis defends Henry and says: "All

Henry's conviction and grasp of his purpose are needed to rescue March--for 19 that is what it amounts to: she is incapable of decision." 33

Leavis views marriage differently in Women In Love. He finds the

heroines "intelligent, and conscious," and says that they do not belong to

"any class or context that can give life bearing or direction, or in which

(say) marriage has its significant and unquestionable place. And yet, if not 20 marriage--What?" Leavis fails to observe that these intelligent, "conscious"

females have to give in to the wills of their male counterparts, and thus

marriage is interpreted as women's submission. The degree of female intelli-

gence is of little or no importance in a Lawrentian novel; she must succumb,

and she must do it of her own free will. When Keith Sagar refers to Ursula 21 as "the first free soul in the English nove1," he fails to perceive that she

must give up her freedom and individuality in order to be protected by Birkin.

And thus the question of female freedom becomes secondary, if not pointless

altogether. Edward Engelberg says that "Ursula reaches no 'happy goal' at the

end of her experience in The Rainbow, and the novelist, like his heroine, had 22 to begin again, from a different perspective." If this "happy goal" is the

union of Ursula and Birkin as far as Engelberg is concerned, it is reducing

her to an inferior being where Lawrence is concerned, because she must first

submit.

Criticism of this period also deals with the idea of the union between man and woman in The Plumed Serpent. Keith Sagar reflects that Cipriano gives 23 Kate life. It takes the whole novel for Kate to come to her final decision

or rather her submission. Throughout the novel she is ambivalent. Although

she decides that men are "the vanity of vanities" (PS, p. 163), and that

they only seek "power." She observes Dona Carlota, who is the epitome of the

Lawrentian subservient woman. Carlota is a slave to her husband, Ramon, and

fears him like God. "She did not trust herself to look at him. It made her

tremble with a strange, hysterical anger" (PS, p. 182). Yet Carlota seems 34

content and happy. Kate is no longer shocked by the idea of woman's submis- siveness, as it seems to be part of the Mexican culture. She even wants to feel the same: "Let me close my eyes to him, and open only my soul. Let me close my prying, seeing eyes, and sit in dark stillness along with these two men. They have got more than I, they have a richness that I haven't got"

(PS, p. 183). The only reason she has not submitted yet is that her intelli- gence keeps her from committing herself and giving up her freedom. Cipriano will not have her any other way. He has already told her that he would not treat her as an American woman must be treated, "lfuy should I? I don't wish to. It doesn't seem good to me" (PS. p. 204). He admits to Kate: "I am a man who yearns for the sensual fulfillment of my soul" (PS, p. 271). He tells her that he is "the master of fire. The living Huitzelopochtli, the living firemaster. The god in the flame: (PS, p. 318) Cipriano sits

"in silence, casting the old, twilit Pan-power," and she feels "herself sub- mitting, succumbing" (PS, p. 309). Harry T. Moore's perception of the marriage between Kate and Cipriano is that of union and togetherness. He says:

"Lawrence reflects that in too many marriages, two ships are lashed together and steered from a single helm; ideally, they should float side by side on the same course. . . This is the kind of relationship Lawrence celebrated, and it represents the relationship of Kate and Cipriano in The Plumed 24 Serpent ." But even the marriage ceremony (although it is not Kate's total submission) signifies the superiority of Cipriano over her. Cipriano is referred to as the "rain from heaven" and Kate is "the earth." She has to kneel and kiss "the feet and heels of Cipriano," while he kisses "the brow and the breast" of Kate (PS, pp. 327-28). Kate is still "a modern woman and a \voman in her own rights" (PS, p. 346). She must give everything up. Her first step toward her final defeat is that she passively submits to Cipriano's 35

sensuality. He deprives her of sexual "satisfaction." Yet she does not want

to admit her dissatisfaction even to herself, and "succeeding the first

moment of disappointment, when this sort of 'satisfaction' was denied her,

came the knowledge that she did not really want it, that it was really

nauseous to her" (PS, p. 442). However, she is contemptuous of total sub-

mission; it would be 11 a submission she had never made. It meant the death

of her individual self" (PS, p. 388). Lawrence wants her to submit con-

sciously, knowingly. Some critics interpret Kate's fate as a kind of solu-

tion for female dominance and power! Horace Gregory indicates: "In The

Plumed Serpent .we found Lawrence slowly swinging back to an important woman

protagonist--and there his restlessness against the female dominance of man 25 \vas beginning to waver tm.;ard some kind of solution. " But Kate is not "an

important woman protagonist." She comes to Mexico as a modern, independent

woman, and she not only gives up her independence, but is reduced to a

passive bed companion incapable of making decisions. Draper states that

"Kate is willing to abandon all her old notions of freedom and independence.

This is tacitly acknowledged in the ambiguity of the last words of the novel"

'You won't let me go!' This statement is both an admission of the powerful hold that Cipriano's 'sensuality' has over Kate and a reservation of her 1126 rlg. h t to d.lsagree wlt. h an d d eny h.lm. However, this statement represents

Kate's incapability of making a decision. She wants Cipriano to tell her what he wants her to do; 'You won't let me go' indicates her total sub- mission and she no longer has the power or the will to "disagree with or

deny" Cipriano, her master. Draper also says: "Kate represents an indepen-

dent type of woman who commanded profound respect from Lawrence. . By the end of The Plumed Serpent one can see his need to come to terms with Kate has 27 a much greater hold on his imagination than the Quetzalcoatl cult." 36

Lawrence does not intend to "come to terms with Kate ," nor does he "respect" her as an individual; to him Ka te is just another mod ern woman with new ideas, but she must give up all to achieve protection from a man. He is quite conspicuous: "Cipriano wanted Kate. The little general, the strutting little soldier, he wanted Kate: just for moments"(PS, p. 398). And yet

Kate decides: "What was the good of trying to understand or wrestle with him? She was a woman. He was a man" (PS, p. 428); therefore, there was no point in having a debate . She must accept him under his terms only. Thus she submits to Cipriano for completion. "Kate was a wise woman, wise enough to take a lesson" (PS, p. 438).

The Sleeping Beauty theme, the idea of resurrection or reawakening , is another topic discussed by the critics of this period. The submission of women in Lawrentian novels has been misinterpreted as a sort of resurrection.

Brian Jones reflects that Lawrence "favored" this Sleeping Beauty motif in his 28 fiction." And Harry T. Moore writES that "In Lawrence's fiction, most of the women are either the will-driven type, like Hrs . Morel and Miriam in Sons and

Lovers--and Carlota in The Plumed Serpent, or they are unawakened, dreaming women, ... In The Plumed Serpent, Teresa, whom Don Ramon marries after

Carlota's death, is already awakened, though Kate fits neatly into the 29 Sleeping Beauty pattern." Lawrence consistently crushes his heroines regardless of the degree of their intelligence or their being "will-driven."

They all submit in the end. What Moore refers to as being "aroused" is nothing but being subservient. Moore calls Teresa "already awakened" be­ cause she has known her place as a woman from an early age! Her two brothers

"by simple brute force ... ousted their sister, gave orders over her head, jeered at her , and in crushing her united for once with each other . They were putting her back into her place as a woman" (PS, p. 394). By marrying 37

her, Ramon saves her from the humiliation that she is suffering under the

authority of her brothers. And she feels grateful, and devotes her body and

soul to serving her new husband. "He had saved her sex from the insult,

restored it to her in its pride and its beauty" (PS, p. 394). He has not

married her out of love, but out of pity. And Kate is the "Sleeping

Beauty" because she still finds it hard to submit totally: "I am not

going to submit. . Why should one give in, to anything" (PS, p. 436).

She is "aroused" and "awakened" only when she succumbs.

Lady Chatterley's Lover is referred to by Moore as "the story of the 30 reawakening and regeneration of a woman." It is not surprising that

Moore should perceive Connie's submission as a "reawakening," considering

his assumption about the other so-called "awakened" heroines. Connie is

submissive to Mellors' sensuality. Her first motive in her affair with

Mellors is to fulfill Clifford's desire to have an heir, which displays

her submissiveness to her husband as well. Keith Sagar reflects that "In

Lady Chatterley's Lover, Lawrence is determined, for once to face the

problem of creating a resurrection story which is literally phallic, with 31 a real man as a phallus-bearer." Although educated and intelligent,

Connie is a naturally submissive type; she "was gifted from nature with

this appearance of demure, submissive maidenness, and perhaps it was part

of her nature" (LCL, p. 130). This statement distinctly displays Law-

renee's resentment of the new, liberated, modern woman and his yearning

for the obedient, helpless woman of the past. Draper says: "Connie's experience has such depth that it brings her a sense of rebirth: 'She was 32 gone, she was not, and she was born: a woman. '" Mellors' exploitation of Connie does not seem to matter to her despite her intelligence, yet she only wants to be assured by his "love" and he does not give her that satis- 38

faction either: "I love thee that tha opened to me" (LCL, p. 165). Connie

feels that "her questions" about love drive "him away from her"

(LCL, p. 165). On another occasion when she asks if he loves her he says:

"Dunna ax me nowt now. Let me be. I like thee. I luv thee when tha lies

theer" (LCL, p. 198). He never tells her that he loves her, only that he is

contented with their sexual relations. Many critics regard this last work

of Lawrence as a totally feministic fiction in which he portrays the modern,

liberated woman and defends the rights of women. However, the depiction of

sexual scenes deludes the critics. Lawrence's aim in this novel is to re-

duce Connie to a sex object. H. M. Daleski says: "The book is an impli-

cit vindication of the female principle ... , and in it Lawrence moves

away from leadership to 'tenderness,' firmly opposing the 'phallic conscious­ 33 ness' to the 'mental consciousness.'" The "liberated tenderness" of the book is nothing but a physical attraction and "phallic consciousness."

Lawrence by no means vindicates the "female principle;" nor does he intend

to oppose "the phallic consciousness;" on the contrary, the rule of the phallus is the book's essential function. "What liars poets and everybody were! They made one think one wanted sentiment. When what one supremely wanted was this piercing, consuming, rather awful sensuality" (LCL, p. 232).

It is the power of the male that dominates the book. Even the impotent, crippled Clifford must command. He is another Lawrentian male stereotype.

He is the male figure who is resentful of his impotence and is reluctant

to admit to it: "Neither my mind or my will is crippled, and I don't rule with my legs. I can do my share of ruling, absolutely, my share"

(LCL, p. 171). Lawrence explicitly presents the reader with the fact that it is Clifford's will that Connie should have an affair: "He really wanted her to go .... He wanted her to go, positively, to ~av e her little adven- 39

tures and perhaps come home pregnant, and all that" (LCL, p. 201). It is

simple to comprehend how Clifford's male egoism is appeased in the sub­

servience of his nurse Mrs. Bolton: "But no wonder Clifford was caught by

the woman! She absolutely adored him, in her persistent fashion, and put herself absolutely at his service, for him to use as he liked. No wonder he was flattered!" (LCL, p. 93) And "only when he was alone with Mrs. Bolton did he really feel a lord and a master, and his voice ran on with her almost as easily and garrulously as her own could run. And he let her shave him or sponge all his body as if he were a child, really as if he were a child"

(LCL. p. 102). Mellors, ,on the other hand, is the epitome of the Lawrentian ruling male. His male egoism is fulfilled in the passivity and total sub­ mission of Connie. He has left his wife because she is a will-driven woman:

"I wanted to have my pleasure and satisfaction of a woman, and I never got it: because I could never get pleasure and satisfaction of her unless she got hers of me at the same time" (LCL, p. 193). And, "If only I could have shot her, and ended the whole misery! It ought to be allowed. When a woman gets absolutely possessed by her own will, her own will set against every­ thing , then it's fearful, and she should be shot at last" (LCL, p. 262).

G. B. McK. Henry writes: "Self-realization and e goism are very close; the female idea of freedom turns into a demand for sexual domination (in its 34 extreme form, the behavior of Bertha Coutts with Mellors)." Bertha is

Mellors' wife and her condemnation is a way of supporting Lawrence's idea that women should remain passive and should not display their feelings.

Therefore, the idea of equality in "union" between the male and the female becomes irrelevant as the scale is perpetually heavier on the side of the male figure. Lady Chatterley's Lover is an exhibition of the power of man over woman. Here Lawrence crushes another intelligent, liberated woman and 40

drives her to submit to the will of the man. It is only this submission that promises her ultimate happiness. Most critics in these years continue in the delusion that Lawrence portrays women sympathetically. NOTES

1 Harry T. Moore ed. A D. H. Lawrence Miscellany (Carbondale, Ill.:

Southern Illinois University Press, 1963), p. 263. 2 Eugene Goodheart, The Utopian Vision of D. H. Lawrence (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1963), p. 114. 3 David Cavitch, D. H. Lawrence and the New World (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1969), pp . 21-22. 4 In Andrews, p. 60. 5 In Andre\vS, p. 61. 6 Seymour Betsky in Hoffman and Moore, p. 136. 7 Freeman, p. 17. 8 In Hoffman and Moore, p. 139. 9 Cavitch, p. 18. 10 In D. H. Lawrence Novelist, Poet, Prophet ed. Stephen Spender

(London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973), p. 198. 11 In Harry T. Moore ed. D. H. Lawrence A Critical Survey, (Toronto,

Canada: Forum, 1969), p. 131. 12 R. P. Draper, D. H. Lawrence (New York: Twayne, 1964), p. 55. 13 Draper, p. 70.

41 42

14 F. R. Leavis, D. H. Lawrence: Novelist(New York: Knopf, 195n), p. 248. 15 Leavis, p. 139. 16 Leavis, p. 326. 17 Leavis, p. 250. 18 Leavis, p. 263. 19 Leavis, p. 330. 20 Leavis, p. 182. 21 Sagar, p. 57. 22 In Andrews, p. 79 .· 23 Sagar, p. 168. 24 In Mark Spilka ed., D. H. Lawrence A Collection of Critical Essays

(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1963), p. 64. 25 Horace Gregory, D. H. Lawrence: Pilgrim of the Apocalypse

(New York: Grove, 1957), p. 81 . 26 Draper, p. 109. 27 Draper, pp. 102-03. 28 Brian Jones, London Magazine June 1967, p. 87 .

29 In Spilka, p. 68. 30 In Spilka, p . 68 . 31 Sagar, p . 175. 32 Draper, p . 117. 33 H. M. Daleski, The Forked Flame (Evanston: Northwestern University

Press, 1965), p . 15. 34 In Andrews, p . 94 . CHAPTER III: Recent Criticism

The growing feminist consciousness of today has influenced criticism of

D. H. Lawrence. Although contemporary criticism reveals to some extent

that Lawrence was hostile towards women, the fact that he compels his hero­

ines to submit to the will of the man remains undiscussed. Kate Millett's

feministic viewpoint sta~ds out in contemporary criticism, as she speculates

on Lawrence's sexual politics and discovers his desire for male dominance.

Some aspects of criticism of this period are the idea of female dominance

and power, the idea of the union of the two sexes, and the idea that Law­

rence is sympathethic to feminism. Lady Chatterley's Lover is regarded as

a story of romance and hope. And some critics state that male dominance

arises out of female incapability.

Hilary Simpson indicates that Lawrence was interested in feminism. He 1 says: "Socialism and feminism remain abstract notions in The White Peacock." 2 He refers to Lettie being "presented as a New Woman." However, Simpson does not mention that Lettie's modernism does not achieve anything for her and despite her education and intelligence, her only salvation and happiness is to submit to a man as all other female characters in the book do. Simpson quotes Lydia Blanchard, who says: "We need not agree with all of Lawrence's

43 44

analysis .... nor with all of his conclusions , to recognize the power in

his description of intelligent women trapped by a society that provides 3 them inadequate outlets for their talents and energies." But the fact is

that Lawrence does not portray "intelligent women trapped" by the society;

it is Lawrence himself who traps these women and does not leave them an

alternative except to have them acknowledge their inferiority to the oppo-

site sex. Although Simpson acknowledges a tone of "anti-feminism" in

Lawrence, he states that Lawrence developed this feeling only "after the 4 First World War," yet he continues to support the idea that "For Law-

renee, the source of all ·life was in the great male and female duality and 5 unity. " / Recent criticism deals with the power of women in Sons And Lovers and indicates that the book defends the rights of women. Scott Sanders says:

"Mrs. Morel controls the scene, as indeed she controls the entire novel: her word is law, and she makes no pretense of hiding the fact from her 6 husband or children." In reality Mrs. Morel is nothing but a slave to her ,. husband and to her children. Her only desire is to please them. She conti- nues to bear children despite her abhorrence of her husband, which is another examp 1 e o f woman 1 y su b m~ss~veness.. . ~ M"~rlam . lS . anot h er woman wh o h as b een misjudged by critics. George Becker refers to her as a self-willed woman who has control over the turn of the events. Becker says: "At this point

Miriam brings Clara Dawes into the picture as a kind of test for 'higher' 7 or 'lower things." But it is not Miriam who brings Clara "into the pic- ture," rather it is Paul's egoism that is seeking a totally submissive woman. Paul knows that deep down in her heart Miriam will always retain her notions about the rights of women; therefore, when he meets the passive

Clara, he simply leaves Miriam for her. Clara enjoys being passive and 45

this is precisely what Paul is seeking. "She felt as if he were using her

unconsciously as a man uses his tools at some work he is bent on. She

loved it" (SL, p. 228). Although Miriam wants to defy society and achieve

individuality and independence, she, too, finally submits to Paul. She has

been prepared by her mother that she should give in to men. When she argues with her brother, Mrs. Leivers scolds her: "But how often have I asked you

not to answer Edgar back? Can't you let him say what he likes?" Miriam

asks: "But why should he say what he likes?" Mrs. Leivers' response is not

convincing : "Aren't you strong enough to bear it, Miriam, if even for my

sake? Are you so weak that you must wrangle with them?" (SL, p. 147).

Therefore, she must now submit to Paul against her own will. "Almost im- passive she submitted to his argument and 'expounding"'(SL, p. 337). And as

the result of a letter he sends her when she becomes twenty-one, referring to her as a nun, she yields sexually to him. It is Paul's will that rules throughout the book. He leaves Miriam, goes to Clara, leavesClara also, and kills his mother. Paul is too much of a Lawrentian male to be ruled by any woman.

Female power and dominance are discussed in criticism of The Rainbow.

Some critics regard Ursula as a strong female. Mark Spilka states: Law- renee felt that women were the stronger sex, the likely dominators, in 8 emotional relations." Spilka then says: "The balances of this period. seem to be genuinely achieved, the assent and respect freely given and fairly won, the strength and memorability of Ursula and Hannele among the finest testimonies we have of Lawrence's liking for--and profound respect 9 for--women." Yet both Ursula and Hannele, despite their strength, yield to the will of Birkin and the Captain. About The Rainbow, Simpson says that the theme of the book should be 'summarized as woman becoming individual, 46

'bl k' h . . . . ,lO se lf -respons~ e, ta ~ng er own ~n~t~at~ve. He then po ints to Ursula's

struggle in the book and calls it her "complex, isolated and essentially 11 modern struggle for self-definition." It is true that Ur sula is struggl-

ing for "self-definition" throughout the novel, but in the end she is not

successful. 12 Simpson says that Lawrence had a "paranoia about female dorninance." He also comments that "Lawrence believed that women had become the 'life- manager' of society, and that, as a consequence, domestic and ultimately

trivial concerns were beginning to dominate politics. He i mplies that the

growth of capitalism and industrialism have been the result of the female domination of society ....The emergence of this complex of hostilities in

Lawrence's writings seems to be linked with the emergence of what carne to 13 be known as ' New Feminism' as a force in political life." Simpson's statement helps us to perceive Lawrence's reason for rejecting women's liberation. Simpson then contradicts himself and says t hat Lawrence is 4 essentially sympathetic to ferninisrn.".l- and that he sees "women's new 15 awakening as spiritual rather than social or political."

In general, Lawrence's motif (s ubmissive woman) indicates the author's dislike for the women's liberation movement and represents his desire to restore the authority of the pat riar chal male. However, Simpson seems to be supporting Lawrence's idea and justifying it by stating that "Lawrence be- lieved that women only sought emancipation when men abdicated from their respons~'b'l' l ~t~es. . ,16 This statement indicates that women do not need to be liberated if their men retain their responsibilities to protect and provide for them, and that modern women should be subservient and abide by the rules of their masters or rather the strong male. Baruch Hochman says that Law- renee "feels that modern women cannot fulfill themselves in marriage. They 47

lack faith in their husbands, who have lost faith in themselves and in their 17 masculine role in the world." And this "faith" is precisely what Law­

rence is trying to restore in his heroes in order to place his heroines in

their rightful place the home, as obedient wives and slaves. Hochman then

indicates that this is what women want as well: "They want--ambivalently 18 to be sure--to submit and succumb to the strong male."

Scott Sanders regards Lawrence's heroines as women who seek liberation.

He mentions Ursula and Gudrun Brangwen in The Rainbow and Women In Love,

March in The Fox, Kate Leslie in The Plumed Serpent, Connie Chatterley in

Lady Chatterley's Lover ~mong the major figures, and states that these 19 characters "remain central figures in Lawrence's fiction." Sanders fails

to observe the passivity of these heroines and how they all submit and give

up their independence and freedom.

Frank Kermode discusses the idea of the union between man and woman in

Lawrence's novels and trea~this subject religiously. He asserts that the

"age of The Holy Ghost" is a "Utopia," and in this utopia, the "sexual 20 expression" would be "Lawrentian Marriage." In Lawrence's novels the union of man and woman is nothing but their physical contact. This physical con­

tact is a portrayal of male activity and female passivity, which remains

Lawrence 's policy not only in sexual relations but in all other aspects of life as well. Because Ursula is modern and intelligent (in The Rainbovr), she tries to retain her individuality; yet for this same reason, Lawrence

leaves her story incomplete and drives her to her submission in Women In

Love.

Barbara Hardy rejects the idea that Lawrence is chauvinistic. She says: 21 "Where he seems most chauvinistic he is probably most personal." She then reflects that "Lawrence's sense of human liberation is realized when he 48

22 forgets the 'he and she'." Hardy indicates that Lawrence is sympathetic

"with Ursula's attempt at liberation, permitting her to do such modern things

as reject her college education for its irrelevance, choose and use the

wrong lover and leave him, become pregnant and have a symbolic and convenient 25 miscarriage." Hardy's assumption that Lawrence sympathizes with Ursula

is inaccurate, as his only notion is to bring her down to her knees. And

although Ursula does not submit totally, Lawrence will not permit her to

have the satisfaction of rejecting Skrebensky's proposal. Rather, she begins

to see life as it ought to be (Lawrence's way). Ursula thinks she is

pregnant:

Her flesh thrilled, but her soul was sick .... Yet she was glad in her flesh that she was with child. She began to think that . . . she should marry him, and live simply as a good wife to him. What did the self, the form of life matter? ..•. She had been wrong, she had been arrogant and wicked, wanting that other thing, that fan­ tastic freedom, that illusory, conceited fulfillment which she had imagined she could not have with Skrebensky. Who was she to be wanting some fantastic fulfillment in her life? Was it not enough that she had her man, her children, her place of shelter under the sun? Was it not enough for her, as it had been enough for her mother? She would marry and love her husband and fill her place simply. That was the ideal. (TR, pp. 483-84)

This would be the ideal for all women as far as Lawrence is concerned. Here

Ursula, ~•ho has a college education and who has had a career as a teacher, begins to become enlightened! This enlightenment occurs when Ursula recognizes the miracle of motherhood. Here Ursula feels regretful and

"humiliated." Lawrence uses this imaginary pregnancy only to partially defeat Ursula and to have her beg to Skrebensky to marry her. She writes a letter to him: 49

Since you left me I have suffered a great deal, and so have come to myself. I cannot tell you the remorse I feel for my wicked, perverse behavior. It was given to me to love you, and to know your love for me. But instead of thankfully, on my knees, taking what God had given me, I must have the moon in my keeping, I must insist on having the moon for my own. Because I could not have it, everything else must go. . I swear to you to be a dutiful wife, and to serve you in all things. (TR, pp. 484-85)

To Lawrence women should have no alternative but to submit, yet they

must acknowledge their incapability to cope with life alone, and therefore,

the submission must be done voluntarily and blissfully: "For what had a

woman but to submit?" (TR. ·, p. 485). Although Ursula regrets having sent

the letter after realizing that she is not pregnant, and despite Tony 24 Slade's comment that"Ursula defeats Skrebensky," He retains his male pride

and has the satisfaction of rejecting Ursula. The cablegram from him reads:

"I am married" (TR, p. 493). Therefore, Barbara Hardy's assertion that

Ursula is permitted to do "modern things" as to "use the wrong lover and

leave him," proves to be wrong. Hardy is pleased with Lawrence's super-

ficial and momentary decent treatment of women and says: "Even a novel which uses women as instruments in the male artist's Bildung has moments 25 •v-hich show the woman, like men as human beings, individuals, persons."

Hardy's statement indicates that to her the final fate of these women must be of very little or no consequence.

Kate Millett's criticism of Lawrence indicates that in some instances

she tends to sympathize with Lawrence and is misled to the point that she

states that Lawrence is trying to come to terms with the modern woman.

Millett says: "Lawrence seems to feel, there is very little left anywhere

for the male. . Most of Lawrence's sexual politics appear to spring

from this version of the emancipation of women; many of the preoccupations

of his later work are a response to it. It is important to know that he 50

began in the midst of the feminist movement, and that he began on the 26 defensive." Millett men tions that the modern woman is a threat to

Lawrence, "Ursula as the new woman" poses a threat; that is why Lawrence 27 "goes to every length to make the lot of the independent woman repellent."

Millett also says: "The driving force behind Ursula's efforts, is, of

course, the feminist movement, at its height during the years of The

Rainbow, and a great force in Lawrence's time, one which he was compelled 28 to deal with." Millett fails to see that Lawrentian heroines allow them-

selves to be influenced by their men or rather, allow themselves to be

driven to their defeat w~ile indulging their ideas about individuality and

independence. They all reach the conclusion that individuality, freedom

and independence are meaningless. Millett says that "Lawrence finds the new woman in Ursula fairly hard to bear .... Finally , one understands she is a threat and the author's ambivalence toward her is a fascinated combination 29 of sympathy and dislike--even fear." Lawrence may feel dislike or fear

towards Ursula, but he does not sympathize with her. He mocks her ideas of

the rights of women through Mrs. Brangwen: "Mrs. Brangwen ridiculed and held cheap Ursula's passions, her ideas, her pronunciations. Ursula would

try to insist, in her own home, on the right of women to take equal place with men in the field of action and work. 'Ay,' said the rr .other, 'there's a good crop of stockings lying ripe for mending. Let that be ~ur field of action."' (TR, p. 353) Millett also points out that "Ursula does reach the promised land of the Brangwen women; transcending their confining traditional

, , 11 30 wor ld s h e goes out to wor k an d t h en to t h e Un1vers1ty. However, Law- renee allows Ursula to have education and to have a career, only to discover the futility of it all. He does not permit her to be successful in her career. She has to acknowledge her "incompetence" as a teacher: "Ursula 51

felt a slightg1ame of incompetence. She was exposed before the class. And

she was tormented by the contradictoriness of everything. Mr . Harby stood so

strong, and so male. " (TR, p. 387). She feels inferior to the

schoolmaster: "She must go down before Mr. Harby. And all her life hence­

forth, she must go on, never having freed herself of the man's world, never

having achieved the freedom of the great world of responsible work"

(TR, p. 391). Thus, she realizes that women are not as competent as men.

Even her moments of relative triumph are momentary. Her victory over the

defiant student becomes repulsive to her, because she must admit that men

are superior and should not be defeated: "She snatched her cane from the

desk, and brought it down on him. He was writhing and kicking. She saw his

face beneath her white, with eyes like eyes of a fish, stony, yet full of

hate and horrible fear. And she loathed him, the hideous writhing thing

that was nearly too much for her" (TR, p. 398). Yet she struggles and

tries to maintain her position in life; she wants to have a career and be

free, yet deep down in her soul she dislikes it: "She dreamed fondly of

the time when she need not be a teacher any more. But vaguely, she knew

that responsibility had taken place in her for ever, and as yet her prime business was to work" (TR, p. 410).

Although Millet does not observe Lawrence's rejection of the modern woman in The Rainbow, she contemplates this rejection in Women In Love and says: Women In Love is the first of Lawrence's books addressed directly to sexual politics. It resumes the campaign against the modern woman, represented here by Hermione and Gudrun. Ursula shall be saved by 31 becoming Birkin's wife and echo." Tony Slade refers to the idea of

"union" between man and woman in Women In Love: 52

Lawrence's intention in writing the book was to deal more exactly with the themes of The Rainbow in a contemporary setting, and to work out an acceptable solution to Ursula's problems as they had been presented in the earlier novel. Marriage was to be the key to meaningful existence and the solution to the ills of mechanical civilization, with the perfect Lawrentian rel~tionship ~resented through Ursula's and Birkin's ach1.evement. 3

Slade also says that "In The Rainbow and Women In Love Lawrence had concerned himself with the problems of achieving fulfillment in life, and had suggested marriage as the means of obtaining this fulfillment for his characters and 33 for himself." But marriage remains Lawrence's way of defeating the female.

Because she has been rejected by Skrebensky, Birkin is not going to have any problem in manipulating her despite her efforts to adhere to her O\vn ideas:

"She knew what Birkin meant when he asked her to marry him; vaguely without putting it into speech, she knew. She knew what kind of love, what kind of surrender he wanted" (WL, p. 257). Yet she marries him. Marriage, therefore, is not a fulfillment, but a submission on the part of the woman; not only

Ursula but all other Larentian heroines become the epitome of passivity.

Although Slade says that in Lawrence "the actual physical sexual relation- 34 ship provides the final and real moral contact," Lawrence uses sexuality to exhibit man's superiority. Slade refers to the scene where Gerald defeats the horse at the railroad and says: "Its real function lies on a symbolic level in showing what Gerald Critch is and what he represents. There is no need for him to keep the horse close to the train at the crossing, but in doing it his attitude to nature is brought out in some depth and with con­ 35 siderable force." But Lawrence is using the horse as a symbol for the female, and by bringing the horse to his knees, he portrays female defeat and submission. That is why Birkin says: "And woman is the same as horses"

(WL, p. 132). Not to mention that Gerald is "super-humanly strong and 53

unflawed, as if invested with supernatural force" (Wl, p. 392). Slade's assumption concerning the horse incident is that "marriage is the essential means through which man can come into direct contact with nature and hence, 36 in Lawrence's eyes, achieve moral awareness." Perhaps these lines may prove that "union" is far out of Lawrence's mind: "What was it, after all, that a woman wanted? Was it mere social effect, fulfillment of ambition in the social world, in the community of mankind? Was it even a union in love and goodness? Did she want 'goodness'? \~o but a fool would accept this of

Gudrun? This was but the street view of her wants. Cross the threshold, and you found her complet~ly cynical about the social world and its advan- tages" (WL, p. 442). The above statement indicates that women's concepts and ideas are only illusions. They do not know what they really want, and ultimately men must push them in the right direction and show them the road to happiness.

Criticism of The Plumed Serpent indicates that some critics fail to see

Kate as a submissive woman. Baruch Hochman says: "Kate's development in the novel involves a husking away of her social ego and her imprisoning white consciousness, permitting the discovery of new possibilities of relation- s h1p. to men an d to nature. ,37 Hochman supports Lawrence's idea of the

"futility" of women's liberation. He says: "Kate's crucial development begins when she realizes the futility of the individuality she had always cherish- ,38 e d . Hochman reflects that "Kate is able to give herself up to Cipriano because he fulfills this possibility for her. He transports her beyond her 39 s h e 11-se lf an d h er pr1son-. l'k1 e 1n. d' lVl 'd ua 1'1ty. " However, in his presenta- tion of Kate, and particularly her marriage with Cipriano, Lawrence stresses his idea of abject woman. Kate is degraded not only because she has been brought to marry him, but because she has to bow to his terms of marriage. 54

In her marriage with Cipriano, Kate is practically led to her prison. She understands Cipriano's true intentions and feelings, yet she succumbs and accepts him for what he is.

T. E. Apter comments; "Kate Leslie's revulsion from life is based upon her disdain for what men are and for what they think they ought to be; also, it stems from her bewilderment as to what it means to be a woman, now 40 that the more 'obvious' roles of wife and mother can no longer occupy her.''

Apter indicates that "despite the apparent justification of the charge 'male chauvinism' to some of his attitudes, his approach involves a sanity and 41 depth which those of the women's movements often lack." Apter also observes of The Plumed Serpent that "The success of the novel rest upon his 42 study of a woman's needs." To Apter, this work is "modern" and "pertinent 43 to current reconsiderations of womanhood and a woman's independence.••

Kate's submission as far as Apter is concerned "is not to the men's will, but to her fascination, and her compromise is not due to reverence of the men, . 1144 b ut to a nee d f or h uman connect~on. Lawrence begins the novel with Kate as the epitome of the modern, educated intellectual woman; a woman who is acquainted with the social and political changes of the world, and a woman who is yearning for equality. She is courageous enough to venture alone in the world only to find out that she is only a "woman" after all! This is how

Lawrence ridicules and toys with the modern woman. The building up of Kate as the self-willed heroine gives Lawrence even more satisfaction to crush her to nothing and make her submit to man's power. George Becker discusses the idea of union in this novel and says that Kate finds fulfillment with . . 45 C~pr~ano. Kate Millett regards the book as "the story of religious 46 conversion" and says: "The novel's point of view is the woman's."

Millett also says that Lawrence "is realistic enough to acknowledge that since 55

the new breed have arrived, the female has actually escaped the primitive 47 condition others assume to be her nature." But Lawrence literally

drives Kate back to "primitive conditions" as he makes her submit to

Cipriano. Although Lawrence makes this submission a voluntary act, the

course of the novel indicates that Kate must submit, she must remain in

Mexico, or Cipriano "could use the law and have her prevented from leaving

the country--or even from leaving Sayula--since she was legally married to

him (PS, p. 437).

Feminist criticism is mostly concerned with Lady Chatterley's Lover.

The sexual scenes and the ,vocabulary were quite new in literature; therefore,

critics were led to believe that Lawrence was portraying the modern, liberated woman favorably. Scott Sanders refers to this book as Lawrence's "last, 48 gentlest and most compassionate novel." He says that Connie "has become 49 much more the modern woman." And Anne Smith points to "undeniable elements 50 of the simplicity of the naturally liberated couple" in the novel. Frank

Kermode refers to Connie as a woman who has awakened. He says: "her

s ystematic awakening into a natural condition of sexuality is an image of the 51 longed-for and yet unlikely day when England should be restored." He also 52 comments that "it is a good book, founded on a kind of self-recognition."

However, Connie is submissive and this is the only reason why she appeals to

Mellors. He has left a self-willed wife and does not hide the fact that his

reason for leaving her is because she demanded simultaneous pleasure in sex.

Tony Slade says: "The central point of the novel is the relationship between 53 Connie and Mellors, and the fulfillment each claims to find in the other."

The relationship is merely sensual and Connie remains the passive party. She

knows that Mellors feels resentment towards her sister Hilda merely because

she is self-willed. Mellors tells Connie that her sister "should ha' been 56

slapped in time" (LCL, p. 231). Hilda is intelligent enough to observe that

Connie is "in the man's clutches" (LCL, p. 229). Hilda's modernism proves to be futile and meaningless: "She had the very hell of a will of her own, as her husband had found out. But the husband was now divorcing her"

(LCL, p. 222). Mellors uses the divorce to crush her: "Yo'll be sick o'yer continuity afore yer a fat sight older. A stubborn woman an' 'er own self-will: ay, they make a fast continuity, they do. Thank heaven, it isn't me 'as go t th' andlin' of yer!" (LCL, p. 229). Mellors then refers to Connie and continues: "A man gets .a lot of enjoyment out o' that lass theer, wh ich is more than anybody gets out o' th' likes o' you. Whi~is a pity, for you might ' appen a ' bin a good apple, 'stead of a handsome crab. Women like you needs proper graftin" (LCL, p. 230).

George Becker reflects that "the physical encounters" between Connie 54 and Mellors "ripen into love." To Becker, Mellors' "union with Connie is 55 one of life and hope and human awareness." Becker concludes: What we had up to this point is a return to Eden, to a state of prelapsarian innocence 56 and naturalness." Let's look at one of the sexual scenes of the novel in order to prove the inaccuracy of the above statements:

It was a night of sensual passion, in which she was a little startled and almost unwilling; yet pierced again with piercing thrills of sensuality, different, sharper, more terrible than the thrills of tenderness, but, at the moment, more desirable. Though a little frightened, she let him have his way, and the reckless, shameless sensuality shook her to her foundations, stripped her to the very last, and made a different woman of her. It was not really love. It was not voluptuousness. It was sensuality sharp and searing as fire, burning the soul to tinder.

Burning out the shames, the deepest, oldest shames in the most secret places. It cost her an effort to let him have his way and his will of her. She had to be a passive, consenting thing, like a slave, a physical slave. (LCL, p. 231) 57

Kate Millett perceives Connie as a modern woman who understands "tender­ ness" and love. Although Millett observes Connie's passivity, she does not consider her a submissive t ype. Rather, she reflects that Connie is the only 57 "modern woman worthy of salvation." She also says: "Lady Chatterley's 58 Lover" is as close as Lawrence could get to a love story." The novel is a portrayal of male supremacy. Clifford holds the authority that is expected of Lawrentian men. Connie fears him: "She was somewhat surprised to find that she was afraid of Clifford. She was afraid to go near him. She was afraid of him as if he were evil and dangerous" (LCL, p. 274). She wants a divorce, but it is not her. will that matters. Clifford is determined to rejec t the idea of a divorce. II "He looked at her with curious cold rage. He was used to her. She was as it were embedded on his will. How dared she now go back on him, and destroy the fabric of his daily existence? How dared she try to cause this derangement of his personality!" (LCL, p. 275). He there- fore says, "And why should I divorce you?" Connie answers, "Because I don't want to live here any more. And you really don't want me" (LCL, p. 276).

Clifford's ressponse is another way of indicating that the male will rules and proves to be ultimate: "Leaving aside personal feelings, and I assure you, on my part it is leaving aside a great deal, it is bitter as death to me to have this order of life broken up, here in Wragby, and the decent round of daily life smashed, just for some whim of yours: (LCL, p. 276).

Clifford also makes a slave out of Mrs. Bolton, and contrary to Graham 59 Hough's statement that "he slips more and more under her dominance," he commands and Mrs. Bolton obeys. She even believes that "if you really set your will against a man, that finishes it. If you care for a man you have to give in to him once he's really determined; whether you're in the right or not, you have to give in. Else you break something" (LCL, p. 221). This 58

is true of all female characters who try to set their wills against their

male counterparts. Hilda's husband divorces her and Mellors leaves his wife.

Yet in the case of Connie, because Clifford doesn't want the divorce, she

becomes powerless and must not break the marriage bond. Hilary Simpson

regards the book as a modern work in favor of the liberated woman. He says:

"Lawrence's last novel does represent a return to the 'feminine' values which 60 he had advocated before the war. " Simpson says that "the novel carefully

establishes" Connie 's "pedigree as a modern woman," said that it has 61 "claimed Mellors as its victim."

Lawrence emphasizes the victory and the rule of the male , and the

defeat and subservience of the female in this book. Thus , Connie the

intelligent, modern woman is reduced to an instrument and a bed companion .

She is a weak woman who is incapable of making her own decisions. And even

if she could make a choice between Mellors and Clifford, she would only be

a tool for Mellors' sexual pleasures and a decorative object in Clifford's home. Recent critcs have observed some cynicism in Lawrence's portrayal of women, but most of them continue to praise him for sympathetic represen-

tating of female characters. NOTES

1 Hilary Simpson, D. H. Lawrence and Femini sm (DeKall, Ill.:

Northern Illinois University Press, 1982), p.26. 2 Simpson, p. 51. 3 In Simpson, p. 13. 4 Simpson , p. 60. 5 Simpson, p. 84. 6 Scott Sanders, The World of the Five Major Novels (New York:

Viking, 1974), p. 29. 7 George J. Becker, D. H. Lawrence (New York : Ungar , 1981), p. 34. 8 In Anne Smith ed., D. H. Lawrence And Women, (London : Vision,

1978), p. 195. 9 In Smith , p. 195. 10 Simpson, p. 16. 11 Simpson, p. 16. 12 Simpson, p. 99. 13 Simpson, pp. 100-01. 14 Simpson, p. 91. 15 Simpson, p. 23. 16 Simpson, p. 108.

59 60

17 Baruch Hochman, Another Ego (Colombia: University of South Carolina

Press, 1970), p. 150. 18 Hochman, p. 152 .. 19 Sanders, p. 47. 20 In Spender, p. 82. 21 In Spender, p. 96. 22 In Spender, p. ll7. 23 In Spender, p. ll8. 24 Tony Slade, p. 65. 25 In Spender, p. 121. 26 Ka te Millett, Sexual Politics (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1970),

P. 260 . 27 Millett , p. 260. 28 Millett, p. 261. 29 Millett, p. 259. 30 Millett, p. 259. 31 Millett, p. 263. 32 Tony Slade, D. H. Lawrence (New York: Area, l970),p. 67. 33 Slade, p. 79. 34 Slade, p. 56. 35 Slade, p. 33. 36 Slade, p. 55. 37 Hochman, p. 243. 38 Hochman, p. 243. 39 Hochman, p. 244. 40 In Smith, p. 156. 61

41 In Smith, p. 156. 42 In Smith, p. 157. 43 In Smith, p. 159. 44 In Smith, p. 176. 45 In Becker, p. 111. 46 Millett, p. 283. 47 Millett, p. 286. 48 Sanders, p. 172. 49 Sanders, p. 180. so Smith, p. 12. 51 In Spender, p. 89. 52 In Spender , p. 89 53 Slade , p. 88. 54 Becker, p. 83. 55 Becker, p. 85. 56 Becker, p. 87 57 Millett, p. 238. 58 Millett, p. 245. 59 Graham Hough, The Dark Sun (New Yo rk: Octagon, 1973), p. 157. 60 Simpson, p. 138. 61 Simpson, p. 140. CONCLUSION

D. H. Lawrence's bold use of sexual vocabulary and sexual scenes in his

novels misled critics into believing that he was a feminist. The publication

of Sons and Lovers, The Rainbow, Women in Love and Lady Chatterley's Lover was the beginning of a sexual revolution in literature. And it was this

sexual revolution that was. mistaken for the freeing of women from dependence

on men. Criticism of Lawrence indicates that the author favors women and

intends to liberate them and to defend their rights. Early critics such as

Middleton Murry, Herbert J. Seligmann, and Julian Moynahan support the idea

that Lawrence was a feminist. Later critics such as R. P. Draper, F. R.

Leavis, H. M. Daleski and Harry T. Moore indicate that Lawrence respected and understood women. Although criticism of Lawrence has gradually changed, and Tony Slade, Scott Sanders and feminist critics such as Kate Millett and

Hilary Simpson, have begun to observe a tone of cynicism in Lawrence towards women, the idea that he understood women and defended them still prevails.

Lawrence's female characters such as Mrs. Morel, Ursula and Connie

Chatterley are considered liberated, domineering, intelligent, and modern.

These women are thought to be strong, powerful and manipulative. However, a closer study of Lawrence's novels reveals that each one of these women de-

62 63

spite her intelligence and modernism succumbs to the power of her male

counterpart and finds happiness in submitting to him. Althou~Mrs. Morel

rejects her husband, she remains a slave to him and to her children. She is

believed to be dominating her son Paul's life, but in fact she is a victim

and dies when he wills her death. Ursula is Lawrence's most intellectual

character. She resists the idea of submitting to the male in The Rainbow,

but her struggle proves to be pointless as she is left a very unhappy person

at the end of the novel. Lawrence pursues her fate in Women in Love, where

she discovers happiness in submitting to a man. Lawrence portrays Connie

Chatterley as an extremely liberated modern woman. Criticism of Lady

Chatterley's Lover implies that Lawrence understood, accepted and favored

the modern woman. However, Connie is just another passive female whose role

is to please the male characters in the novel including her temporary lover,

Michaelis, her impotent and weak husband, Clifford, and her lover, Mellors.

Because Lawrence asserts that women have become the dominant sex, he shows

these women as being intellectual and liberated. However, in order to avert

a masculine revolution, once his heroines realize that there is no other

happiness but to succumb, they are ready to take their rightful place as

dutiful wives, passive lovers and good mothers. Thus Lawrence's motif, which is a battle for power between the sexes, results in male dominance

and female submission and subservience. BIBLIOGRAPHY

~Andrews, W. T. ed. Critics on D. H. Lawrence. Coral Gables, Florida:

University of Miami Press, 1971.

Becker, George J. D. H. Lawrence. New York: Ungar, 1980.

Cavitch, David . D. H. Lawrence and The New World. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1969.

Da leski, H. M. The Forked Flame, A Study of D. H. Lawrence. Evanston:

No rthwestern University Press, 1965.

Draper, Ro nald P. D. H. Lawrence. New York: Humanities Press, 1969.

------D. H. Lawrence. New York: Twayne, 1964.

------" D. H. Lawrence On Mother-Love. " Essays in Criticism, S

(January 1958), 285-289.

Farr, J udith. Twentieth Century Interpretations of Sons and Lovers.

Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1970.

Freeman, Mary. D. H. Lawrence A Basic Study of His Ideas. Gainesville:

University of Florida Press, 1955.

Goo dheart, Eugene. The Utopian Vision of D. H. Lawrence. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1963.

Gregory , Horace. D. H. Lawrence: Pilgrim of the Apocalypse. New York:

Grove, 1957.

64 65

Hochman, Baruch. Another Ego. Columbia, S. C. University of South

Carolina Press, 1970.

Hoffman, Fredrick J. and Moore, Harry T. ed. The Achievement of D. H.

Lawrence. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1953.

Hough, Graham. The Dark Sun. New York: Octagon, 1973.

Jones, Brian. London Magazine , Vol. 9 June 1969, p. 87.

Lawrence, D. H. Assorted Articles.Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries

Press, 1930; rpt. 1968.

4 Short Novels of D. H. Lawrence. New York : Viking , 1965.

Lady Chatterl~y's Lover. 1928; rpt. New York : Signet, 1962.

The Plumed Serpent. 1925; rpt. New York: Knopf, 1963.

The Rainbow. 1915; rpt. New York : Penguin, 1977.

Sons and Lovers . 1913; rpt. New York: Penguin, 1976.

The Hhite Peacock. 1911; rpt. London: Heineman, 1974.

Women in Love. 1920; rpt. Ne\v York : Viking, 1973.

Leavis, F. R. Thought, Words and Creativity. London: Chatto and Windus, 1976.

------. D. H. Lawrence: Novelist . New York: Knopf , 1956.

/ Mi llett, Kate. Sexual Politics. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1970.

Moore, Harry T. 11 The Plumed Serpent: Vision and Language 11 in D. H.

Lawrence A Collection of Critical Essays. ed. Mark Spilka, Englewood

Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1963, pp. 61-71.

------. ed. A D. H. 1awrence Miscellany. Carbondale: Southern

Illinois University Press, 1959.

------. D. H. Lawrence A Critical Survey. To r onto , Canada: Forum, 1969.

! Moynahan, Julian ed. Sons and Lovers. New York : Viking, 1968.

Sagar, Keith. The Art of D. H. Lawrence. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1966. 66

I Sanders, Scott. The World of the Five Major Novels. New York: Viking, 1974

Seligmann, Herbert. D. H. Lawrence An American Interpretation.l924; rpt.

Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 1971. 1 simpson, Hilary. D. H. Lawrence and Feminism. DeKall, Ill.: Northern

Illinois University Press, 1982.

Slade, Tony. D. H. Lawrence. New York: Arco, 1970.

/ Smith, Anne ed. Lawrence a nd Women. London: Vision, 1978.

Spender, Stephen ed. D. H. Lawrence Novelist, Poet, Prophet. London:

Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973.

Young, Kenneth. D. H. Lawrence. 1952; rpt. London: Longmans, Green, 1963.