Apple as a symbol of cognition in D.H. Lawrence’s works

In 1929, Lawrence published a critical essay, “Introduction to These Paintings”, The author contrasts two works by French artists - “Four apples” by Cezanne (“Four apples”, circa 1900-1901) and “Apples in a Basket and on a Table” by Fantin-Latour (“Apples in a Basket and on a Table”). The latter, despite his friendship with impressionist artists, was not under their influence and painted realistic still life work in a conservative style.

The importance of form, composition, and skill in the use of color are ridiculed by Lawrence in the pages of the essay: “This is all wonderful, if we talk about decoration and illustration, significant form, tactile value or plasticity, or movement, or spatial composition, or the relationship of color <...> with the same effort you might as well get your guest to eat the menu card at the end of dinner” [2, p. 107]. Lawrence considers the art critic Clive Bell, the author of the theory of meaningful and pure form, to be a pseudo-prophet in the “new era of art”: “O purify yourself, you who desire to know aesthetic ecstasy, and ascend to the “white heights of artistic inspiration”. Cleanse yourself from every base thirst for fairy tales and from every base thirst for similarities. Purify yourself and know the only highest path - the path of Meaningful Form. I am the revelation and the path! I am a Meaningful Form. <.> I am Form and I am Pure, behold, I am Pure Form. I am the revelation of Spiritual Life moving behind the veil. I come and declare myself, and I am the Pure Form, behold, I am the Significant Form” [2, p. 108]. Rejecting Bell's ideas as another attempt by man to exalt himself, to show his own importance, and criticizing the “attractive, pseudo-photographic,” “realistic” fruits of Fantin-Latour, Lawrence contrasts them with the works of Cezanne: “For you, Fantin- Latour's apples are nothing more than enameled cutlets <.>. Taste the unsteady apples of Cezanne and the nailed apples of Fantin-Latour - the apples of Sodom" [1, p. 51].

A person is able to perceive objects, living and inanimate nature as separate entities thanks to the imagination, which is integrally connected with art and intuition, with “blood consciousness”. Lawrence wrote: “Imagination is a glowing state of consciousness in which intuitive knowledge predominates. The plastic arts are all images, and images are the basis of our imaginary life, and our imaginary life is a great joy and an all-encompassing stream of consciousness <.>. In the flow of true imagination, we cognize completely, simultaneously mentally and physically in a blazing consciousness” [2 p. 4].

Lawrence considered Fantin-Latour's painting a cliche because it represented only an external image created by the mind, the same image that is created as a result of a photograph (“Kodak image”). The writer considers that it is “a curious habit that man developed in the process of development of civilization <...> to see as a camera sees, <...> as Kodak taught him to see” [2, p. 4] to the detriment of how he could perceive himself. Lawrence wrote: “It is a habit we have formed: to visualize everything. Each person is a picture for himself. That is, he is a complete small objective reality, complete in itself, existing on its own, absolutely, in the middle of the picture. Everything else is just decoration, background. For every man, for every woman, the Universe is just a decoration for his or her little image of himself” [2, p. 4].

Thus, for Lawrence, the fundamental difference between the two artists was Cezanne's ability to free his imagination from the "prison of memories created by his mind" [2, p. 6]. Cezanne sought to determine “individual shift in consciousness and to recognize apples intuitively, both inside and outside, and to draw what he really sees, their “appleness”” [1, p. 126]. The writer believed that if a person does not notice this difference between two images of apples, this indicates the habit of perceiving objects exclusively through the cliches of mental consciousness.

Lawrence was not the first to point out the danger of the prerogative of reason in perceiving the world. In an era of rapid development of technology, medicine, and science, Henri Bergson, in “Creative Evolution,” translated into English in 1911, pointed to other forms of consciousness, which are usually referred to as intuition, instinct, habit and the unconscious. Lawrence also adhered to a similar point of view, pointing out that a person needs to change perspective, abandon destructive anthropocentric tendencies, learn to appreciate the non-human, creating a “new morality” in relations with the world.

It can be determined that the source of the “new morality” was Lawrence's ability to see the world differently, from a different point of view. Lady Ottoline Morrell recalled that while walking with him in the forest in early spring, he showed her the tiny fiery red buds of the trees, calling them the little red flame of Nature; his companion then noted to herself that this flame certainly lived in him too.

The apple as a symbol of knowledge, temptation, a person's desire to possess forbidden knowledge and, at the same time, as a symbol of a person's desire to overcome the boundaries allowed to him on the path to enlightenment and progress is considered in many literary works and in painting. First of all, the allusions are connected with the religious meaning of this symbol, with the biblical story of the temptation of Adam and Eve. We find reading of this story in Lawrence's painting “Throwing Back the Apple,” which depicts Adam, Eve and God under the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. Eve faces Adam and hands him an apple. Adam throws an apple at God. Commenting on this picture, Kate Sagar correlates Adam with Lawrence, Eve with Frida, Lawrence's wife: “The apple that Adam/Lawrence throws represents not knowledge, but self-awareness, since it was self-awareness that led to the feeling of shame, the fall and expulsion from paradise. Adam's refusal of the apple is a reproach not only to God, but also to Eve/Frida, who would have taken it” [1, p. 43].

In the novel “Women in Love,” unlike “Rainbow,” all biblical allusions will distort the traditional meaning. The apple of knowledge as a symbol in Lawrence's novel "Women in Love" refers to Hermione Roddis - a unique and original female image. Its prototype was the philanthropist and close friend of Lawrence, Lady Ottoline Morrell, who repeatedly provided financial support to the writer and his wife. They met in 1915, both from Nottinghamshire, which brought them together through shared childhood memories. There was a strong and trusting relationship between them. It was to this woman that Lawrence gave the manuscript of "Rainbow" after it was withdrawn from print two weeks after publication. Lawrence asked either to destroy it or keep it, since it brought him unbearable suffering. Lady Ottoline introduced him to Bertrand Russell, who was initially fascinated by Lawrence's erudition and fiery character. Ottoline wrote in her memoirs that Bertrand considered the writer an Old Testament prophet, similar to the prophet Ezekiel, and noted in him the strong influence of “the blood of his nonconformist preacher ancestors” [6, p. 64].

Russell acknowledged that his book “The Principles of Social Reconstruction” (1915) was largely influenced by ideas that he repeatedly discussed with Lawrence. His philosophy of politics was based on the belief that impulse has a greater influence on people's lives than conscious purpose. He divided impulses into two groups: possessive and creative, considering the latter to be the best for human life. He attributed the state, war and property to the embodiment of possessive impulses. To creative impulses he named education, marriage and religion. Fragments of the future book were first given in the form of lectures and were a great success with everyone except Lawrence, who criticized almost all of Russell's ideas, accusing him of distorting the thoughts that he had learned from him.

Lawrence reproached Bertrand Russell for almost the same as Fantin-Latour - the dominance of reason, slavery to reason. It is no coincidence that he also portrayed him in the novel “Women in Love” next to Hermione Roddis under a name that carries many connotations - Joshua.

At the beginning of the novel, Lawrence gives the reader the opportunity to see Hermione through the “eyes” of people from different social groups, which creates her unique and memorable image. She first appears at the wedding of one of the daughters of the richest mine owner, Mr. Crich. Local teachers - Ursula and Gudrun Brangven are watching what is happening from afar. They note Hermione's unnaturalness in the way she carries herself. She does not walk, but “floats”, “without moving her hips, which is why her movements looked as if she did not want to go forward at all” [7, p. 17]. Girls pay attention to her refined and impeccable appearance and notice that the combination of colors of her clothes (pale yellow and brown-red) give her appearance an impressive look and, at the same time, look gloomy and repulsive. “Her pale, elongated face, turned, like the women in Rossetti's paintings, to the sky, seemed stupefied, as if strange thoughts were swarming in the dark corners of her soul and she had no escape from them” [6, p. 17].

The only environment where Hermione feels confident is the circle of enlightened intellectual aristocracy. She “lived an intellectual life and carried on her shoulders a heavy burden of self-awareness that required great mental strength. She was passionately interested in reforms, her heart was given to social problems" [6, p. 17]. Hermione “was the bearer of culture, it was given to her to translate ideas into reality. <...> No one had a chance to humiliate or ridicule her - she was one of the best, her offenders were below her in position, and they had less money than she did, and less points of contact with the world of thought, progress and intelligence - and even more so. <...> All her life she strived to become impervious to ridicule, inviolable, to be above human judgment. But at the same time, her heart, exposed for everyone to see, was torn to pieces” [6, p. 19].

Despite all the strength of her character and power, she was “powerless in the face of all the pricks, ridicule and contempt <...> of the poor people” [6, p. 19]. “She constantly felt vulnerable; there was an invisible hole in her armor. And she could not understand the reason for this vulnerability. And she was vulnerable because there was no liveliness in her, as by nature she did not have integrity, inside she felt emptiness, flaw, inferiority. She wanted someone to fill this void, to fill it once and for all. She needed Rupert Birkin like air. When he was around, she felt complete, she became whole, self-sufficient” [6, p. 19]. Only Rupert Birkin is able to deprive her of all this suffering - a man who fills her inner emptiness and gives this woman the opportunity to feel wholeness.

The time of writing of the novel coincided with the beginning of the First World War, when most of the established moral principles of society proved their failure. The theories of Darwin, the teachings of Freud and Nietzsche undermined man's faith in God, reason, and the beneficence of progress. Lawrence does not mention the war in the novel. The characters live in pre-war times. However, the feeling of approaching change, the search for a way out of a critical situation is obvious in the images of Gudrun, Ursula, Gerald and especially Rupert-Lawrence.

The writer repeatedly offered Lady Ottoline Morrell to create a union, a center of intellectual people who would accept new morality as the basis of their new life. Financial and social status would not matter, while personal qualities and the desire to “reformat” the world according to a new morality would become the cornerstone of the new community. Lawrence wanted to name the new union Rananim (the title of the song in Hebrew). His coat of arms was to be a black phoenix bird, as a symbol of rebirth.

The theoretical basis for the organization could have been the lectures of Bertrand Russell (mentioned above), “rewritten” by Lawrence. Lawrence subjected Russell's idea of social reconstruction to severe criticism, insisting on the need to proceed from the fundamental impulse towards truth in man. The author of the lectures was so angry with Lawrence for his responses that he wanted to destroy the manuscript of the lectures. Russell believed that Lawrence mistook his imagination for truth, which led to confusion and disagreement between concepts.

Contemporaries did not take Lawrence's ideas seriously. The writer failed to organize a “union of new morality”. There is a possibility that he expressed his dissatisfaction and resentment through the characters of his novel, changing mainly the “vector”.

Now Ottoline-Hermione is looking for the opportunity to conclude an alliance with Lawrence- Birkin, who gives preference not to her, but to Ursula-Frieda, Lawrence's wife: “If only Birkin had dared to enter into a close and lasting alliance with her, she would not be afraid of the road of life, which is constantly slipping away from under her feet. Only Birkin could return her to solid ground, only he could make her triumph, triumph over the very angels of heaven. If only he could do it! She was tormented by fear, tormented by a bad feeling. She did everything to become beautiful, she tried hard to show him how beautiful she was, how superior she was to the rest - if only it would convince him. But there was no inner confidence, just as there was none before. Besides, he persisted. He pushed her away from him, he always pushed her away" [6, p. 19-20].

In the novel one can find another fragment that can be considered as Lawrence's “revenge” and, above all, a reproach to Lady Ottoline and Russell. Ursula, a schoolteacher, is teaching a botany lesson, explaining to the children the purpose of earrings on hazel and willow. The children have small branches of these trees on their tables. School inspector Rupert Birkin and Hermione come to the lesson. When the children left the class, Rupert told the women about these plants: “Do you know what the red oval flowers from which nuts grow are needed? <...> These flowers produce fruits, and the long catkins fertilize them with their pollen. <.> These red lumps give birth to fruits, but only if the long catkins give them their pollen” [6, p. 46]. When Hermione heard this, she “fell into a strange oblivion, into an incomprehensible ecstasy. <.> Small red female flowers aroused in her an inexplicable, mystical and ecstatic interest” [6, p. 47]. Hermione asks whether it is “in the interests of children to awaken their consciousness, <...> maybe it would be better for them not to know about the earrings, maybe it would be better if they saw the whole picture as a whole, and not pull it apart into components?” [6, p. 47]. Then the young man was “rude, contemptuous and even cruel” [6, p. 49]. He began to reproach his mistress for the fact that knowledge is everything to her, this is her whole life. There is only one tree, and she can eat only one fruit, the “notorious apple” [p. 50]. The biblical allusion to the apple of knowledge again introduces an important theme for the writer - knowledge through the desire to possess knowledge, to the detriment of the “blood knowledge” that a person possesses from birth.