RELATIONS OF DOMINANCE AND EQUALITY IN D. H. LAWRENCE

31
can be associated with Dr Frankstone, Mr Harby, and Winifred and
Uncle Tom.
Sagar says that all of them and 'all other mechanical
wills' represent what Ursula has met and rejected.
The end of
the book, after Ursula's meeting with the horses, "closely
resembles the strange rhythm of the mind struggling with its
deepest problems and moving, unconsciously, towards a resolution"
(p.64).
Sagar, therefore, considers Ursula as walking out of
her troubles with hope.
Ford, on the other hand, believes that Skrebensky (seen by
Ursula) is "the man who had come out of the Eternity "to which
she herself belonged"" (p.153).
It seems to me that his statement
is true only in the first part because in fact Ursula discovers
by the end of the novel that Skrebensky was not what she was
looking for, and that now that she has 'overcome' her troubles,
she is ready to look for this man coming from 'Eternity' "to
which she herself belonged". Of course this man is not Skrebensky.
Ford's view is erratic.
The critic also claims that "Lawrence
presents Skrebensky through Ursula's eyes as a free spirit, full
of vitality" (ibid). However, it seems to me that he does not
point out that Ursula, soon after the excitement of her meeting
with Skrebensky passes, starts questioning him and 'destroys'
him because of his 'nothing-like' quality.
Once more it seems
to me that Ford's defense of Skrebensky is inappropriate.
Ford
analyses Ursula as being a woman who repudiates "the traditional
role of passive "beloved"" (p.156), but in the end of his
interpretation he says that she breaks with Skrebensky exactly
because he could not arouse in her ""the rich fear" that she
demands a man to inspire" (p.157).
This idea seems contradictory
because the 'rich fear' Ford values is associated with submission
which, in his words, Ursula repudiates.