T H E S I S
T H E S I S
T H E S I S
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
96<br />
Every critic has seen sex as a vital principle in the Lawrentian<br />
universe.<br />
(22)<br />
The much overworked uphallic symbol*' appears in<br />
his works as high art, hence he creates the touchstone of his doctrine,<br />
‘'phallic consciousness”, the philosophical and symbolical<br />
basis of Lady Chatterlev»s Lover? where sex is a sort of religion,<br />
but a religion in which sex substitutes for love«<br />
This aura of “religiousness” is Lawrence's lingering puritanism,<br />
which he inherited from his puritan mother. Very soon he<br />
rejected the re3.igious doctrine of Puritanism, but the residue of<br />
this parental background remained in his unconscious forever and<br />
came to surface more times than he was aware of* Once in a while<br />
Lawrence admits his puritanic roots, and we have seen how he is<br />
taken by a religious zeal to ”purify” sex from brutality, shame,<br />
furtiveness, and the “dirty secret”, and even to "purify” the<br />
four-letter words* But how can a puritan fight for sexual freedom?<br />
It seems a tremendous contradiction. It is indeed a paradox,<br />
but not entirely so« Lawrence repudiates his old puritanism<br />
because of all its incongruities and falsities and becomes an an»<br />
ti-puritan. But he proposes to purify the sex relation and to<br />
cleanse it of all dirt and falsity, and to elevate it to the dignity<br />
of any human act. Thus, really, he becomes an anti»puritanical<br />
puritan, as I have said, a romantic puritan*1<br />
To pursue his contradictory aims is in a sense a form of<br />
self-destruction. He wants to destroy the old Lawrence, the product<br />
of English culture, the ”son of woman”. Hence his symbol is<br />
the phoenix, who destroys itself and rises again from the burned<br />
nestj with everlasting youth<br />
To what extent Lawrence succeeds in his doctrine it is not