|
| |
Review commentary by Jeremy Wilson on Lawrence,
the Uncrowned King of Arabia by Michael Asher (London, Viking, 1998)
previous page | Page
11 | next page
|
Chapter 2: Dominus Illuminatio Mea
Schooldays, 1896-1905 (10 pages)
|
| page/para/line |
|
| 24/1/24- |
I am
less sure about the discussion of Lawrence's attitude to organised
games: "Actually the motto 'never compete' was an aspect of
Lawrence's paradoxical mask which hid a nature so extremely competitive
that he could not even bear to hear someone else praised without feeling
diminished." No source is given for the last part of the above,
which is a paraphrase, badly out of context, from Seven Pillars,
chapter CIII: "The hearing other people praised made me despair
jealously of myself, for I took it at its face value; whereas, had they
spoken ten times as well of me, I would have discounted it for nothing.
I was a standing court-martial on myself, inevitably, because to me the
inner springs of action were bare with the knowledge of exploited
chance." [Seven Pillars of Wisdom, London, Jonathan Cape,
1935, p. 565]
In a fairly trivial
sense, what Lawrence says there must be true for most people, and anyone
who is honestly self-critical will admit it. In another sense, whatever
the race, every competitor would like to win. The prize-giving
inevitably reminds the losers that they lost.
But how significant is
all this? As I have said earlier, I think one should be cautious about
the "Myself" chapter in Seven Pillars of Wisdom. It is
written in grandiose language, but some of the elements that Lawrence
included in his self-portrait are, necessarily, commonplace (just as
most portraits contain eyes, noses, and the like). Was this particular
facet present in Lawrence to an unusual degree, or just part of human
nature in general, that he recognised introspectively and singled-out
for mention?
He himself gave out praise liberally. Did it hurt him so much to hear
others do likewise? Id like to see some evidence. |
24/1/30
et seq.
25/2/1-2 |
Following
the sane observation that Lawrence did not like competitive school
sports because his short stature was a disadvantage, we are told here
that his refusal to take part in organised sport "was his most
overt expression" of a "rejection of the norms of middle-class
society", which in turn was an aspect of his "reverse
exhibitionism." This conclusion, for which Asher offers no logical
argument whatsoever, is amateur psycho-babble.
By contrast, the content
of the last
few lines on page 24 and the beginning of page 25 is fair comment -
though hardly new. It is a relief, after the first chapter, to find
Asher paying some attention to the social mores of the day.
Unfortunately, however, it turns out that his purpose here is devious.
Having set up masculinity as an ideal of Edwardian imperialism, a fair
biographer would point to the fact that Lawrence achieved considerable
sporting status, despite the handicap of his size, through his
remarkable performance in individual activities such as cycling. In
those days cycling was a widely followed sport in this country. For
example, in the early years of the century there was a British
equivalent of the Tour de France.
That, however, is not
the conclusion Asher wishes to foist upon us. Instead, he claims that: "For much of his life, Lawrence idealised masculinity
because he knew that he was not conventionally masculine himself."
In the succeeding sentences Asher attempts to prop up this bald
assertion by citing Lawrence's boasts about his physical strength and
endurance. No matter that such statements merely underline Lawrence's
consciousness of his small stature. Asher's allegation - which the
"evidence" presented here most certainly does not support - is
that size was not Lawrence's real problem: it was that he was "not
conventionally masculine."
It is important to
note, therefore, that this
crucial step in Asher's argument - which is the introduction of the idea
that Lawrence may have been homosexual - has no foundation in either
evidence or logic. Next page |
|
