8 Feb 2019

The Man Who Slept: Notes on an Autobiographical Fantasy by D. H. Lawrence



I. Opening Remarks

We are extremely grateful to Professor Hiroshi Muto of Keio University for providing us with a new and more accurate version of Lawrence's unfinished and untitled 'Autobiographical Fragment'a queer mix of fiction and essay often known as 'A Dream of Life' - in which he corrects the multiple errors of transcription that had crept into the (supposedly authoritative) Cambridge Edition of the text published in Late Essays and Articles and edited - somewhat carelessly it would seem - by James T. Boulton.    

Admittedly, some of these fifty errors are minor. But even minor errors can result in ungrammatical sentences, or, indeed, sentences which are both grammatically and semantically compromised. Thus, as Lawrence's eagle-eyed Japanese translator says, a new version of the work - using the holograph manuscript (i.e. Lawrence's notebook) as the base text - was necessary.   

The 'Autobiographical Fragment' was written by Lawrence in October 1927. What begins as an essay about returning home to the East Midlands, mutates halfway through into a bizarre and at times ludicrous tale set a thousand years in the future, in which the narrator-protagonist discovers the coal-mining village of Newthorpe has become a kind of heaven on earth or New Jerusalem.

Whilst I admire most of Lawrence's writing, I have always disliked this piece - and still dislike it now, even after the many corrections made by Hiroshi Muto. I've no problem with the autobiographical material, it's what follows that irritates and nothing depresses me more than Lawrence in full utopian mode ... 


II. A Dream of Life: Synopsis

Having fallen asleep in a quarry cave, or, more precisely, "a little crystalline cavity in the rock [...] a little pocket or womb of quartz, among the common stone", the narrator is disturbed from his (almost deathly) deep sleep by a strange motion and reborn into the world in a manner reminiscent of the man who died. Like the latter, he has to fight his way back into consciousness, into life:       

"There were some dizzy moments, when my I, my consciousness wheeled and swooped like an eagle that is going to wheel away into the sky and be gone. Yet I felt her, my I, my life, wheeling closer, closer, my consciousness. And suddenly she closed with me, and I knew, I came awake."

The man who slept is acutely aware of his own physicality; of the fact that he has a face, a throat, and "a body that ended abruptly in feet and hands" and wasn't merely a disembodied, free-floating consciousness. He can hear the words of a stranger speaking to him and feel the warm hands of men, who laugh, as they bathe his flesh:  

"So as they washed me, I came to myself. I even sat up. And I saw earth and rock, and a sky I knew was afternoon. And I was stark naked, and there were two men washing me, and they too were stark naked."

He is helped up and dressed by these strangers with their healing hands, soft voices and "formal, peaceful faces and trimmed beards, like old Egyptians". They accompany him to the town and he notices that all signs of industrial civilization - the colliery, the railway, the enclosed fields - had all gone. A cart, drawn by oxen, slowly passes in the distance, led by a man who is also entirely naked.

The town itself - now called Nethrupp - had "something at once soft and majestical about it, with its soft yet powerful curves, and no sharp angles or edges, the whole substance seeming soft and golden [...] as in the hymns we sang in the Congregational Chapel". 

Then three men on horseback canter up from behind:

"They were men in soft, yellow sleeveless tunics, with the same still, formal Egyptian faces and trimmed beards [...] Their arms and legs were bare, and they rode without stirrups. But they had curious hats of beech-leaves on their heads. They glanced at us sharply, and my companions saluted respectfully." 

As the man who slept and his companions approach the town, more and more people are to be seen; mostly men "wearing the sleeveless woolen shirt of grey and red", but there are women too, "in blue or lilac smocks", although some of the younger ones "were quite naked, save for a little girdle of white and green and purple cord-fringe that hung round their hips and swung as they walked".

He can't help admiring their "slender, rosy-tanned bodies" and the fact they were as "comely as berries on a bush". In fact, that was the quality of both sexes: "an inner stillness and ease, like plants that come to flower and fruit". 

The man who slept is introduced to a figure of authority, reclining on a dark-yellow couch and guarded by men in green. He had the beauty of a flower rather than a berry. This chieftain of some kind gives him permission to stay in the town and he is supplied with clothes of his own: "a blue-and-white striped tunic, and white stockings, and blue cloth shoes" and housed in a small, sparsely furnished room, containing a bed, a lamp, and a cupboard - but no chairs.

At sunset, the town square erupts to the "queer squeal of bagpipes". The men start to stamp their feet, like bulls, while the women "were softly swaying, and softly clapping their hands" and making a series of strange sounds. Everyone dances "with the most extraordinary incalculable unison", but according to the man who slept, there was no external choreography:

"The thing happened by instinct, like the wheeling and flashing of a shoal of fish or of a flock of birds dipping and spreading in the sky.  [...] It was as once terrifying and magnificent, I wanted to die, so as not to see it, and I wanted to rush down, to be one of them. To be a drop in that wave of life."

Almost as quickly as it started, the dance ends: the townspeople disperse in silence. Even the man who slept recognises that this is odd and disconcerting behaviour: "I was afraid: afraid for myself. These people, it seemed to me, were not people, not human beings in my sense of the word. They had the stillness and the completeness of plants."  

Next, the man who slept is shown a communal washing area and toilets. Then taken to the communal dining room, where the men sat naked on the floor round a blazing wood fire, enjoying an evening meal of porridge and milk "with liquid butter, fresh lettuce, and apples". Everyone helps themselves to what they want and everyone washes their own utensils, each hanging his own spoon and plate in his own little rack. This greatly impresses the man who slept: "There was an instinctive cleanliness and decency everywhere, in every movement, in every act."

Deciding to join in, the man who slept takes some porridge and watches as more men arrive, slipping out of their clothes at the first opportunity, softly talking and laughing, and playing board games. Then he's taken to meet the supreme spiritual leader, who wears a deep red-coloured tunic: 

"He had brown hair and a stiff, reddish-brown beard, and an extraordinary glimmering kind of beauty. Instead of the Egyptian calmness and fruited impassivity of the ordinary people, or the steady, flower-like radiance of the chieftain in yellow [...] this man had a quavering glimmer like light coming through water."

He informs the man who slept that he fell asleep in "one of the earth's little chrysalis wombs" and after a thousand years woke up "like a butterfly". That whilst he may not live for much longer, he shouldn't be afraid; just take off his clothes and let the firelight fall on him.


III. A Dream of Life: Analysis

I know that many readers of Lawrence - including Hiroshi Muto - find this tale beautiful; a poignant attempt by Lawrence late on in his life to provide a glimpse of the kind of society that he dreamed of. But when one examines this utopia of touch it reveals a number of troubling aspects. Here are ten points of concern:

1. It's a phallocratic order based on an eroticised fantasy of male homosociality. And ultimately, that's just another way of perpetuating traditional gender stereotypes and reaffirming patriarchal authority. Mellors might find himself very much at home, but I wonder what Connie would think ... 

2. Life in this utopia seems to involve an awful amount of stripping off - so much so, that one could imagine such a fantasy going down well with militant naturists who insist that truth loves to go naked and that it's more healthy and vital to go around without clothes: only it doesn't and it isn't. Rather oddly, if there's one thing that Lawrence fetishises more than nudity, it's clothing (as will be clear to readers of this and other works).    

3. If militant nudity is simply crackpot, then the utopian politics of post-industrial agrarianism is all a bit Pol Pot: I really don't fancy returning to Year Zero and nor do I desire to see naked peasants working the fields with oxen in order to earn a bowl of rice a day. There are times when reading this work that one imagines heads skewered on stakes.

4. Lawrence may write of a democracy of touch, but that doesn't mean there are no class divisions in his New Jerusalem. We note, for example, there are men on horseback whom ordinary citizens must salute respectfully. And just like the gender divisions, these class divisions are colour-coded and sartorially inscribed. For someone who was so sensitive to the issue of class, it's surprising that Lawrence doesn't seem to appreciate how his own perfect society would invariably be prone to tensions and conflict arising from its hierarchical structure.      

5. I'm quite happy living in a room that is sparsely furnished. But Lawrence takes his ascetic idealism too far when he doesn't even allow people to have a chair to sit on. Just as I don't want to salute some prick on a horse or walk around the streets naked, nor do I wish to sit on the floor like a dog, thank you very much.

6. The people play bagpipes. 

7. Communal dancing: despite what the man who slept says, this is obviously compulsory and strictly choreographed in a manner that would make even Kim Jong-un smile. As for pagan sun-worship, that's all very lovely until it goes a bit Aztec or Wicker Man and ends with human sacrifice. Many readers of Lawrence like to believe he put such fantasies behind him after The Plumed Serpent but, as a matter of fact, that's not quite the case as this text shows (though, to be fair, even the narrator of the tale is disconcerted by the inhuman nature of individuals dissolved in a mass).

8. Communal showers and toilets: again, no thanks. It looks like it could be fun in Carry on Camping, but surely no one really wants to have a cold shower with strangers, or shit in a field.

9. Communal dining areas: and on the menu - let us remind ourselves - porridge and milk, with liquid butter, fresh lettuce, and apples. I would quite literally prefer to starve to death than have to comply with this invalid's diet. 

10. Not only is Nethrupp a totalitarian society, it's a theocracy - ruled over by a Lord Summerisle figure with a red-beard, a bit like Lawrence's own. All in all, it's very disappointing. Lawrence repeatedly claims to value men and women, but surely then he should acknowledge that they are not plants, or birds, or fish. Or even butterflies. That their beauty and unique potential as a species lies in the very complexity that he would strip them of.     


Notes

D. H. Lawrence, ['Autobiographical Fragment'], Late Essays and Articles, ed. James T. Boulton, (Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 49-68.

Hiroshi Muto, 'A New Edition of D. H. Lawrence's [Autobiographical Fragment (A Dream of Life)], Journal of D. H. Lawrence Studies, ed. Susan Reid, Vol. 5, Number 1 (2018), pp. 11-57. All lines quoted above are from this new and corrected version of the text. 

Hiroshi Muto, 'D. H. Lawrence's Forgotten Dream: The Significance of "A Dream of Life" in His Late Works', The English Society of Japan (July 1990): click here to read online courtesy of the National Diet Library, Japan.

In this essay Professor Muto shows how 'A Dream of Life' closely relates not only to The Escaped Cock, but also to Lawrence's Etruscan writings and Lady Chatterley's Lover, providing a unique insight into these works. Thus I agree with him that it deserves serious critical attention within the world of Lawrence studies.


11 comments:

  1. A superb dismantling of Lawrence at his most deluded. And worth reading just for this line:
    Whilst I admire most of Lawrence's writing, I have always disliked this piece - and still dislike it now, even after the many corrections made by Hiroshi Muto. Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. Phallocratic/gender stereotypes/patriarchal authority. . .
    The men are male. The women female. If that's a 'stereotype', heaven help us all! The 'authority' figure is like a natural phenomenon - far from patriarchal.
    2.Naturism is good. Truth does love to go naked. It's lies like to get all dressed up. The fetishising of clothing seems remarkably absent from Lawrence's work.
    3. It's a peaceful society. Why fears of 'heads on stakes' (That happens in the world today!)
    4. How refreshing that there are no false 'equality' ideals, which Lawrence rails at elsewhere.
    5.Man can live without chairs. They are over-rated and cause all manner of ailments. This Badger's saintly Cousin in America NEVER sits down!
    6.Bagpipes stir the blood. Och, aye!
    7. Pagan sun/cosmos worship features strongly in Lawrence's final work, Apocalypse. Pagan ceremony can be deeply moving and fulfilling. More so than the Christian sham.
    8. Only shitting in the woods beats shitting in a field. It's far more healthy an evacuation than a stupid w/c - which are responsible for constipation, piles and untold numbers of unnecessary premature deaths.
    Cold showers can be very healthy - cold water generally.
    9.Can't beat porridge, apple, lettuce etc. And 'butter' as a spread - so long as is vegan marg!
    10. Plants, birds, fish, butterflies all have wonderful complexity - without ever becoming victim to the range of complexes which torment present day mankind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's true that Lawrence did seem to have a problem with indoor plumbing and 'living like a well-to-do American', but even Mellors wants men to carve their own stools to sit on ...

      Delete
  3. Didn't Lawrence write 'The Boy in the Bog'...

    ReplyDelete
  4. The point is that Lawrence preferred to write in 'the Bush', not stuck in 'the Bog'- which latter unwholesome location is evidently where too many (Lawrence Society members included - who one might expect to know better!) are still reading him. . .and even becoming horribly sniffy about one of his most lovely and fascinating, fragrantly innocent and naive, little flowerings of thought.
    Whatever the the misgivings which have been mentioned - and they are minor quibbles. . . easily refuted or brushed aside like so many crumbs. . .surely we need this Lawrentian vision of a more wise and regenerated mankind more than ever at a time when young schoolgirls must resort to warning us, with rousing words, of the impending end of the world.
    First Greta Thumberg standing to address the impotently seated at the Climate Conference. Now, Anna Taylor telling a similarly morally inert nation that our children are learning from Sweden and boycotting classes in protest tomorrow (Fri 15th Feb)!
    When will all Lawrentians wake up to the wasteland we're soon to with global emissions of greenhouse gases and the worldwide extinction of insects?
    Rather than superciliously poke fun at Lawrence's brave look at a better future for us all, Lawrentians would do better
    battling to stop HS2 from destroying the countryside, ancient woodlands and wildlife habitat, learning from Holland and joining with anti-fracking campaigners to prevent their nightmare happening here!, and uniting to rid our air of the traffic pollution that is adversely affecting the health of countless UK millions and causing the premature deaths of many thousands.
    Let's, as Lawrentians get out off our superior stools and onto our all too human feet.
    Remember Mellors lived (fictionally) 1,000 years before Lawrence's 'Dream'. Please don't set about the destruction of brilliant and helpful beautiful literary dreams - but rather, get set to actively tackle the real living nightmares!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, the real point is that not everyone shares your eco-apocalyptic perspective on events.

      And whilst it's true that you can - and do - brush arguments aside, you can't refute them without evidence and careful critical consideration; something you seem unwilling (or unable) to provide.

      Delete
    2. Oh, as for Greta Thunberg, I refer you to this piece by James Dellingpole ...

      https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/02/14/delingpole-pig-tailed-swede-greta-thunberg-is-the-david-hogg-of-climate-alarmism/

      Delete
  5. With far more pressing matters to be dealt with, there simply isn't always the time nor reserves of patience to refute every disagreeable assertion by assembling evidence, applied with careful critical consideration. The badger's a busy creature!
    However, on this occasion, and in the light of such an open invitation, let's have a go!
    Surely the 'real point' is that the 'eco-apocalyptic perspective on events', is not only shared by the finest minds in the world, but is being confirmed by one authoritative scientific study after another.

    When one considers the immense contribution and achievement of Professor James Boulton. . .his phenomenally important role in the magnificent and now complete Cambridge University Press Lawrence, how desperately ungrateful it looks to direct unqualified criticism towards him over these previously overlooked (by all) issues in An Autobiographical Fragment - and especially as Jim Boulton is no longer around to reply.

    As to the inference of a 'homoerotic' element in the scene where naked men are involved in washing the equally naked 'Lawrence' character. Such affectionate intimacy between men is by no means homoerotic in nature. Lawrence famously reminisced of the time he was lovingly dried down following a swimming session in Moorgreen reservoir by his best friend, George Neville. Men are frequently and quite naturally affectionate and tender towards each other without there being any 'homoerotic' involvement. It is wonderful to be naked and free and unselfconscious. Attributing homoeroticism does a grave disservice to such moments of spontaneous closeness between men, as is likely to result in greater inhibition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would suggest that if you are too busy to engage in an intelligent (and respectful) exchange of ideas then best not comment at all.

      I also suggest you take a look at an essay by Philip Hammond and Hugh Ortega Breton entitled 'Eco-Apocalypse: Environmentalism, Political Alienation and Therapeutic Agency', in which they argue that the current obsession with an end of the world narrative is best understood "neither as a near-timeless feature of human culture nor as a reasoned response to objective environmental problems. Rather, it is driven by unconscious fantasy; the symbolic expression of an alienation from political subjectivity, characteristic of a historically specific period ..."

      Thus, whilst it's true that some environmentalists find apocalyptic language useful, many regard such alarmist rhetoric as problematic and often counter-productive.

      As for your refusal to consider that there was an obviously erotic aspect to the homosocial interactions described by Lawrence in his queer utopian fantasy, well, that borders on homophobic denial. If 'affectionate intimacy'between naked men isn't homoerotic, then what is?

      Finally, I take your point about James Boulton. But I'm sure he'd have wanted his editorial work to be subject to close critical scrutiny.

      Delete
  6. There is just time to mention George Monbiot, in the Guardian, 20th Feb, as perfect retort to total twaddle from Dellingpole. . .
    e.g.
    'Greta Thunberg, whose school strike sparked this movement, has written a response far more dignified and mature than the articles attacking her in publications like the Spactator. But the nastiness has only just begun. As some of us can testify, the viciousness of the lobby groups funded by the fossil fuel industry, and the publications that amplify their message, knows no limits. As we have already seen, they treat even children as fair game.'

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh dear! Won't somebody think of the children!

    ReplyDelete