Not much work today to do.  I could return to the list
again and I will ramble a little, though on the
context of what Eliot wrote of Lawrence.

"One writer, and indeed, in my opinion, the most
> interesting novelist
>    in England--who has apparently been somewhat
> affected by Dostoevsky,
>    is Mr D. H. Lawrence"

Lawrence did openly acknowledge his indebtedness to
the Russian Novelists.  He was terribly fascinated by
the 'Grand Inquisitor' episode of 'The Karamazov
Brothers' in which Ivan humiliates Jesus Christ
through the imaginary dialogue between the Grand
Inquisitor (which is Ivan, and in turn, Dostoevsky
himself) and he wrote a long note on this episode as
to how much profound it was but at the same time how
much repulsive it could as well be, for it came from
an artist who had his ‘solar plexus’ and the ‘Lumbar
ganglion’ severed up so much (to use Lawrence’s own
terms) that he ceased to be an artist and had to
pretend to be one with his ‘Satanic Pose’.  ‘My heart
sinks through my shoes’, he said whenever he read
Dostoevsky in his later years.

That Eliot could relate Dostoyevsky when he spoke of
Lawrence is interesting to me precisely because of
what Lawrence thought of Russian Literature,
Dostoevsky in particular.  ‘Russian art, Russian
literature after all does not stand on the same
footing as European or Greek or Egyptian art. It is
not spontaneous utterance. It is not the flowering of
a race. It is a surgical outcry, horrifying, or
marvellous, lacerating at first; but when we get used
to it, not really so profound, not really ultimate, a
little extraneous…’ he said, in his foreword to Lev
Shestov’s ‘All things are possible’
).  The influence of Dostoevsky (and of Russian
Literature in general) that Eliot makes an inference
to appears to me to make more sense in understanding
Eliot’s judgment of Lawrence.

- vishvesh

--- "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Vishvesh Obla wrote:
> >
> > We discussed once in this list Eliot's malicious
> > remarks on D.H.Lawrence. I even made a few quotes
> > related to what Eliot calls 'deplorable religious
> > upbringing' of D.H.Lawrence.  This essay (perhaps,
> the
> > whole book) is for sure a slur to Eliot?s works.
> > While he seems to me to have shifted his stance
> from
> > various other issues he discussed in this book
> (one of
> > them probably his ?anti-semitic? stand),  what
> strikes
> > me is that he continued to pour venom in whatever
> he
> > said about Lawrence.
> Vishvesh it appears that you are aware of this bit
> of Lawrence bashing
> below.  Eliot wrote this more than a decade before
> After Strange Gods.
> (Well, as for the bashing, TSE _is_ nice at points).
>  I have Eliot's
> London Letters to The Dial almost ready for my
> website and, since I
> have them available for a cut and paste, I'm posting
> Eliot's opinion
> on Lawrence in support of your point.
>    One writer, and indeed, in my opinion, the most
> interesting novelist
>    in England--who has apparently been somewhat
> affected by Dostoevsky,
>    is Mr D. H. Lawrence. Mr Lawrence has
> progressed--by fits and starts,
>    it is true; for he has perhaps done nothing as
> good as a whole as Sons
>    and Lovers. He has never yet, I think, quite
> surrendered himself to
>    his work. He still theorizes at times when he
> should merely see. His
>    theory has not yet reached the point at which it
> is no longer a
>    theory, he still requires (at the end of Aaron's
> Rod) the mouthpiece
>    for an harangue. But there is one scene in this
> book--a dialogue
>    between an Italian and several Englishmen, in
> which one feels that the
>    whole is governed by a creator who is purely
> creator, with the
>    terrifying disinterestedness of the true creator.
> And for that we can
>    forgive Mr Lawrence his subsequent lapse into a
> theory of human
>    relationships.
> But Lawrence isn't the only one who gets the
> treatment:
>    Mr Frost seems the nearest equivalent to an
> English poet,
>    specializing in New England torpor; his verse, it
> is regretfully said,
>    is uninteresting, and what is uninteresting is
> unreadable,
>    and what is unreadable is not read. There, that
> is done.
> Regards,
>    Rick Parker
> Quote on Lawrence is from page 331 of
>    Eliot, T.S., 'London Letter,' The Dial, New York,
> vol. LXXIII, no. 3,
>    (September, 1922) pp. 329-331
> Quote on Frost is from page 513 of
>    Eliot, T.S., 'London Letter,' The Dial, New York,
> vol. LXXII, no. 5,
>    (May, 1922) pp. 510-513

Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!