D.H. Lawrence (1885–1930) is a better poet than his casual readers are readers of his poetry. Or so at least it might seem when we consider the lingering effect of R v Penguin Books, the 1960 obscenity trial about the British publication of Lawrence’s 1928 novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover.
As it happens, Lawrence’s publishers won the notorious trial, but a consequence was that Lawrence existed in the public imagination for the next 50 years mostly as a sex fiend: an evangelist of the sexual revolution (in its early instantiation as “Free Love”), to be canonized or anathematized according to one’s view of all that. And, of course, Lawrence was pictured entirely as a novelist — author of Sons and Lovers, The Rainbow, and the rest — and not also as a young Georgian poet who made the turn into modernism.
Literary critics spent decades trying to force recognition that his works were, in fact, high-modernist achievements. And they succeeded — but only once Lawrence ceased to be read much at all. His fading as a cultural symbol made possible a better judgment of his writing but among a diminished audience. In these days of Only Fans and Pornhub, who would bother to read Lady Chatterley’s Lover for the frisson of the sex?
Whatever’s left of that old picture of him as a sex-novelist could lead us to expect that his poetry would be poetic yawps about his sexual freedom and prowess. But Lawrence is better than such easy self-aggrandizements. His best poems often reveal a mortifying self-reflection or a recognition of his own diminishment and failure.
In the 1923 “Snake,” for example, he recounts seeing a poisonous snake drinking at a water trough in Sicily. He cannot bring himself to kill it, either because he’s too admiring or because he’s too afraid. But as the snake leaves, he awkwardly and ineffectively throws a chunk of wood at it — the worst of reactions. And the poet realizes that “I missed my chance with one of the lords / Of life. / And I have something to expiate: / A pettiness.”
Something similar is present in “The Enkindled Spring,” a 1916 poem in which Lawrence describes the season as it “bursts up in bonfires”: a torrent of imagery for a world ablaze with new-green fire. Weak poets — striving to be, say, ersatz Walt Whitmans — would go on to proclaim themselves joined to this seasonal blaze: a phallic tower of spring’s force, a yonic frenzy that creates new life.
But as Lawrence notices his own amazement at “this conflagration,” he turns to self-reflection, the What am I? of existential doubt, realizing that he is not the fire but part of the unlit shadows that waver between the flames: “a shadow that’s gone astray, and is lost.”
Today’s Poem, “Piano,” may be the peak of this line in D.H. Lawrence. His three stanzas — quatrains rhymed aabb — have a curious meter: a falling rhythm, loosely trochaic, that grows from five stresses in the first two lines of each stanza, to six in the third line, and seven in the fourth. The effect is a building toward something, and yet not toward what we might expect from a seduction poem.
A woman sits at the piano, singing a passionate song, seeking to allure her listener. But the scene causes that listener to remember sitting under a piano as a child, his little hands on the feet of his mother (a perfect detail) as she plays the old hymns on a Sunday evening in the parlor.
“So now it is vain for the singer to burst into clamour / With the great black piano appassionato,” Lawrence tells us. The woman’s attempt at seduction has failed, because “the insidious mastery of song” has pulled the listener back in time, and “The glamour / Of childish days” is upon him. He realizes that his childhood has in equal parts shaped him and undone him — with both of these captured in the phrase “cast down”: His manhood is cast (in the sense of formed) down in his childhood, and his manhood is cast down (in the sense of a deflated phallic desire) by a memory of that childhood: his mother, the hymns, the cozy Sunday parlor. He is even cast down in the sense of his adulthood washed away, lost “in the flood of remembrance” as he weeps “like a child for the past.”
Piano
by D.H. Lawrence
Softly, in the dusk, a woman is singing to me; Taking me back down the vista of years, till I see A child sitting under the piano, in the boom of the tingling strings And pressing the small, poised feet of a mother who smiles as she sings. In spite of myself, the insidious mastery of song Betrays me back, till the heart of me weeps to belong To the old Sunday evenings at home, with winter outside And hymns in the cosy parlour, the tinkling piano our guide. So now it is vain for the singer to burst into clamour With the great black piano appassionato. The glamour Of childish days is upon me, my manhood is cast Down in the flood of remembrance, I weep like a child for the past.
First I must admit that I've never read any of Lawrence's novels and not that much of his poetry; he is one that I am familiar with at all simply because several of the poems have regularly appeared in the anthologies I taught from. This one I fell in love with the first time I read it, and it's only gotten lovelier to me over time. I always used it to show my students the beauty of sound: the way he uses the soft sounds (all those s sounds!) for most of it, but then the almost-harsh sounds of "burst into clamour / With the great black piano appassionato" . . . then falling back into the m's and s's and r's in the final line . . . Simply amazing. And the imagery -- as you say, the detail of the speaker sitting under the piano, pressing his hands on his mother's feet as she uses the pedals, is perfect, along with the sound of the strings and her smile as she sings. But what draws me most into the poem is the insistent drawing of the speaker into the past, against his will, to a time he clearly loved and yet, somehow, even weeping for it, does not want to be taken there. "In spite of myself" -- why does he want to stay in the present, why is he inevitably drawn into the past, why does he weep for what he has lost, and how much of it has he lost? We have none of his answers here, but only our own journey into the past and the questions posed to us . . .
Along with Patricia Snow you may rehabilitate Lawrence yet:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2024/01/self-abuse
She posits that Lawrence was not writing pornography, but trying to recapture the primordial attraction of man and woman for each other, the "glamour" of that relationship.
I remember reading Lady Chatterley's Lover when I was in my early teens. My mother saw what I was reading and was appalled. "But Mom, it's Literature!", I said. She let me be...
But I admit that the romantic image from the novel that never went away was Mellors plaiting little flowers into the hair of his beloved. I'm not talking about the hair on her head... A practice that somehow never caught on.