Evening star., 1937-06-26
By Mary.Carter Roberts.


L synthesize, dissect, debunk
clarity and generally make under
stood by readers the man who was
Lawrence of Arabia. It is a collection
of short essays written by people who
knew Lawrence in varying capacities
and varying degrees of intimacy. Gen
Allenby. Winston Churchill, Bernard
Shaw, E. M Forster and F. Yeats
Brown are among the more prominent
contributors. Among the less we'll
known are men who served under
him in the Arabian campaign or with
him in the Royal Air Force, old school
friends, later friends, his brother, his
mother and two Arab companions. In
all, so men and women have made
their contributions. The composite
effect Of all these opinions and remi-
niscences is trifle saddening-it puts
one in mind of the story of the three
blind men pronouncing on the elephant
The one who touched the flank
said the elephant was a wall
the one who touched the trunk said
it was a serpent and the one who
touched the ear said it was a curtain.
What, one wonder, would be T. E. Law
rence's own reaction to such volume
as this? Certain it is that he had to
die before such a compendium could
eoncelVably be printed.
What one gathers from it all is, of
course, what every one knows already
that Lawrence was a man of genius.
SC i,,to
sometimes directly with commendaole
conservatism and again directly but
with great argument. More often it is
expressed indirectly through an evi-
dent unhappy aWareness on the writ
ers part (seen between his lines) of
something in Lawrence too strange
and eerie for his own comprehension.
Perhaps the comparison of the volume
to the three blind men was not the
happiest after all they, at least, knew
nothing Of the creature they were de-
flnng beyond the part of it which
came into their hands. These evalu-
ators of Lawrence, however, have seen
the whole animal, but have not quite
understood it. They are more like a
group of nice, correctly-minded clti-
zens gathered together after a good
lunch to inspect a man from Mars.
They wish us to know that they fully
realize that the stranger is different
from themselves-is indeed superior
to themselves. But they are not very
happy about it. Genius, as has been
said before, is always disturbing. Law
renee himself never wished to disturb
He sought privacy until his seeking of
it became the great part Of his leg
end 1t seems little unkind today,
somehow, to drag so many good la
dies and gentlemen from their happy
pursuits to talk about him, for when
they have finally expressed themselves
they have said practically nothing
and that to the length Of more than
500 pages.
Nothing? Well, they tell us that
Lawrence was leader of men, that
he had superlatively keen intelligence,
that he was possessed of physical en-
durance far beyond the capacity of
other men, that he did not drink or
smoke, that he preferred to treat with
women as if women were human
beings, that he hated pon1posity and
pretense, that he had sense OF hui
NOR, that he was below middle height
and strongly built, that he loved good
music and fine books, that he had a
veritable passion for speed, that he was
brilliant military strategist, that he
was the outstanding Englishman of two
generations, that he was PuckiSh, that
he was an artist, that he was Christ
like. Various people stress various ones
of these qualities. On a single point
all are in agreement. And that is
that they did not understand him.
So what is the reader to think?
Why, as has been said, simply that
Lawrence of Arabia was a man Of
genius. 1t may be amplified by re-
marking that his was not a genius
of specialization, that he brought
brilliant virtuosity to anything which
he elected to do, and that he did not
elect to do many things which he
did not enjoy. That he had cold
brilliant gusto for life itself, with
proportlonate appreciation of life's |
futllity. That he was both self-con- |
scious and sufficient to superla- |
tive degree. That he was able to live, |
in other words and not merely to |
cling to his existence. These points |
are amply sustained by the present |
volume, but surely they have been
evident to any one who has followed |
Lawrence's career or read his own |
writing.
Certain of the essays, to be sure,
are sufficiently expressive of their |
authors personalities to be interest
Ing documents in themselves. The |
reviewer felt the liveliest curiosity |
about Lord Allenby's estimate OF his |
erstWhlle subordinate. She found that |
the general had limited his contribu-
tion to single page-one of the
shortest in the volume-and that its |
praise was couched in the restrained |
language of perfect conventionality. |
No one, of course, knew better than !
Gen. Allenby what Lawrence's capacity |
was. He, q military man, has not |
been disposed to expend rhetoric on
the indefinable.
After this, the most interesting
essays would seem TO the reviewer to |
be those contributed by the Arabs.
Consider the following lines, taken
from the piece contributed by Sheikh
Hamoudi, pre-War friend, who saved |
Lawrence's life when the future hero
was engaged in archaeological research
In Syria and later accompanied him
on visit to England:
Il am counted brave, the bravest
Of my tribe; my heart is iron but
his was steel. A man whose hand
was never closed but open AS I
wake I think of him and as fall
asleep he is my last thought. Tell
them tell them in England what
I say. OF manhood the man, in free
dom free; mind without equal; can
Zee no flaw in him"
What more could be said than that?
Unhappily the volume does not con-