Studies in Classic American LiteratureLawrence, D. H. (David Herbert)
History
Studies in Classic American Literature
Lawrence, D. H. (David Herbert)
American literature -- History and criticism
Sheer cussedness! But there was as well the salt of a subtler purpose.
Benjamin was just in his eyeholes--to use an English vulgarism meaning
he was just delighted--when he was at Paris judiciously milking money
out of the French monarchy for the overthrow of all monarchy. If you
want to ride your horse to somewhere you must put a bit in his mouth.
And Benjamin wanted to ride his horse so that it would upset the whole
apple-cart of the old masters. He wanted the whole European apple-cart
upset. So he had to put a strong bit in the mouth of his ass.
"Henceforth be masterless."
That is, he had to break-in the human ass completely, so that much more
might be broken, in the long run. For the moment it was the British
Government that had to have a hole knocked in it. The first real hole it
ever had: the breach of the American rebellion.
Benjamin, in his sagacity, knew that the breaking of the old world was a
long process. In the depths of his own under-consciousness he hated
England, he hated Europe, he hated the whole corpus of the European
being. He wanted to be American. But you can't change your nature and
mode of consciousness like changing your shoes. It is a gradual
shedding. Years must go by, and centuries must elapse before you have
finished. Like a son escaping from the domination of his parents. The
escape is not just one rupture. It is a long and half-secret process.
So with the American. He was a European when he first went over the
Atlantic. He is in the main a recreant European still. From Benjamin
Franklin to Woodrow Wilson may be a long stride, but it is a stride
along the same road. There is no new road. The same old road, become
dreary and futile. Theoretic and materialistic.
Why then did Benjamin set up this dummy of a perfect citizen as a
pattern to America? Of course he did it in perfect good faith, as far as
he knew. He thought it simply was the true ideal. But what we _think_ we
do is not very important. We never really know what we are doing. Either
we are materialistic instruments, like Benjamin or we move in the
gesture of creation, from our deepest self, usually unconscious. We are
only the actors, we are never wholly the authors of our own deeds or
works. IT is the author, the unknown inside us or outside us. The best
we can do is to try to hold ourselves in unison with the deeps which are
inside us. And the worst we can do is to try to have things our own way,
when we run counter to IT, and in the long run get our knuckles rapped
for our presumption.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account