Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeNuméros49D.H. Lawrence’s Female Correspond...

D.H. Lawrence’s Female Correspondents: a First Study of His Correspondence with Them

Jonathan Long

Full text

1The Cambridge University Press published Lawrence’s surviving correspondence in full between 1979 and 2001. This has been supplemented by the publication in the Journal of D.H. Lawrence Studies of further letters, as they come to light. Such a commitment to publication reflects Lawrence’s reputation as a highly skilled letter-writer. Such is the extent of the correspondence, particularly full in his latter years, that it is an invaluable tool in understanding his life and works. Indeed no biography of substance can fail to refer to it regularly. Much has been written about Lawrence’s skill as a correspondent, much more on his relationships with women, but there appears to be no research focussing on his correspondence with women. This paper offers a first study of this subject, both quantitative and qualitative, with suggestions for further research.

2First of all I am going to put the issues raised here into context and explore why they are important, dealing initially with the history of publication of the letters and how they gradually came to be seen as so significant. The publication in 1932 of the first collection of Lawrence’s letters by Aldous Huxley was a landmark in this process. But the origins of it are not straightforward. The process began only a few days after Lawrence’s death when Frieda contacted Huxley. As he told Edward Titus, printer and distributor of the Paris “Popular Edition” of Lady Chatterley’s Lover:

Mrs Lawrence would like to see an edition of his letters published and I suggested to her the following idea – that we should intersperse the letters with personal recollections of Lawrence by various people who have known him at different epochs of his career. […] In this way one would produce, it seems to me, a very living book – DHL in his own words and as reflected by the people (mostly interesting personalities) he knew […]. Mrs Lawrence would like you to undertake the publication of the limited edition. (Selected Letters xxv)

3This project, bearing striking similarity to the Composite Biography produced in three volumes by Edward Nehls in the 1950s, did not bear fruit at the time. Huxley focussed on producing a collection of letters alone, seeking letters from their recipients in The Times on 8th July 1930, the book published in September 1932 by Heinemann in London and Viking in New York. It reproduced approximately 800 letters, but not always in full. The title of the book, The Letters of D.H. Lawrence, suggested a comprehensiveness that it did not merit. There is no need here to dwell on the inadequacies of the book for example in terms of the omission of parts of the text of letters, or the omission of names (probably for fear of libel action and certainly for fear of upsetting the many Lawrence correspondents still living then). More important is the fact that in the much-quoted introduction, running to 26 pages, a significant part is not directly about the letters at all. They are not referred to except in passing until two-thirds of the way through. Huxley was using the opportunity to counter the damage done to Lawrence’s reputation by John Middleton Murry in his 1931 book, Son of Woman. Huxley describes Lawrence’s “gift” and his “genius” passim in this first section of the introduction, seeing him as a “prophet.” “ Less than six pages from the end of his introduction Huxley abruptly brings this to an end and writes “Enough of explanation and interpretation,” then provides four pages of reminiscence and ends with less than two pages on the letters themselves, which he describes as having the “highest importance as biographical documents [...] showing Lawrence as he was in his daily living […] in all his moods.” There was a lot more to do in relation to the correspondence, both in terms of publishing unpublished letters (for example, Huxley openly omitted most business correspondence and all of the enormous correspondence on the publication of the Florentine edition of Lady Chatterley’s Lover) and in terms of providing an analysis of it.

4Moving forward to 1955, Harry T. Moore in his biography of Lawrence, Intelligent Heart, was able to quote from over 200 unpublished letters, according to the blurb on the dust jacket. Moore’s work has been overshadowed by or superseded by the Cambridge Edition of the Letters and Works and also by the three-volume Cambridge biography, but he was an important pioneer. Following the publication in 1950 by Penguin and in 1958 by Farrar, Strauss and Cudahy of shorter selections of letters, in 1962, at a greater distance from Lawrence’s lifetime than Huxley’s collection, Moore edited approximately 1000 letters, published in two volumes as The Collected Letters of D.H. Lawrence. Unlike Huxley, his introduction gets straight into the significance of Lawrence as a letter-writer, beginning:

D.H. Lawrence’s letters have the colour and cadence of his imaginative prose because he gave to all types of writing the full force of his creative energy. In this he was unlike most writers, who use up their primary strength in novels, plays, or poems, and turn wearily to their correspondence in some spare corner of a day. But to Lawrence personal communication was a necessity that involved his whole being. And although his letters are astonishingly abundant, particularly for a man so often ill who died fairly young, most of them display the vision of an artist, the challenge of a prophet, and the intensity of a man implicated almost religiously in all the little daily things that make up existence.

5These letters can be read singly, like poems in an anthology, but when arranged in order in a large collection such as the present they form one of the significant autobiographies of our time as well as a vital commentary on the time itself. They are among its greatest letters and provide one of its richest reading experiences. (ix)

6In the half a dozen or so pages that follow this analysis Moore economically provides a synopsis of the type of correspondence the collection contains and the key events in Lawrence’s life the letters relate to, setting in context the main recipients of the letters, as they make their entrances and their exits. But in relative terms, the collection was not as large as Moore suggests, printing less than a fifth of what we have available to us now. He wrote in his introduction that his “two large volumes are certainly full enough to satisfy the most voracious Lawrence reader” (xvi), not a view shared today.

7Following the publication of the Harry T. Moore volumes, the momentum was kept up. The appetite for more letters, and therefore more information about Lawrence’s relationships, was reflected in the publication of a series of complete collections of correspondence with individuals. Ignoring the not insignificant number of letters used in their own memoirs of Lawrence written in the 1930s by correspondents such as his sister Ada, Mabel Dodge Luhan, Catherine Carswell, John Middleton Murry, Earl and Achsah Brewster and so on, this had started in 1948 with the letters to Bertrand Russell being published, with those to Rachel Annand Taylor following in 1956. However, 1968 was a milestone year with James T. Boulton’s edition of over 150 letters to Louie Burrows, none of which had been published before. Then in 1970 came the correspondence with Harold Mason, Edward D. McDonald and others at the Centaur Bookshop, the correspondence with Martin Secker and over 300 letters to Koteliansky. 1976 was another milestone year as the Black Sparrow Press published over 100 letters, comprising the then known correspondence between Lawrence and Frieda and Thomas and Adele Seltzer, nearly all of it previously unpublished, and in 1985 all Lawrence’s correspondence with Amy Lowell. I shall return to the significance of such two-way correspondence later on.

8We now have the Cambridge Edition of the letters. Including those published in the latest issue of the Journal of D.H. Lawrence Studies, there are 5721 letters. Lawrence was the first modernist to have his correspondence published in full in an edition of this quality. As described in the Warren Roberts and Paul Poplawski 2001 bibliography, Lawrence was “one of the most voluminous English letter writers. The catholicity of his correspondence makes the letters an important source for study of the period, and the letters themselves are indispensable for an understanding of Lawrence” (202). Boulton himself was particularly complimentary. In the Preface to the first volume of the Letters he stated that:

The letters are biographical documents of the highest importance in that they inform us about his discernible life; but, in addition they contain unique evidence for the “biography of an emotional and inner life” to which Lawrence referred in the Preface to his Collected Poems. Through them we come close to the creative mind and whole personality of the private individual, Lawrence. We also acquire an intimacy with the man and the spirit which played a public role and exerted a formative influence on the modern consciousness. This influence, impossible briefly to formulate or precisely to estimate, is permanent. It has been variously welcomed and lamented; it is rarely denied.

9The growing value attached to the letters for their quality and their significance as a biographical source in successive editions of the letters has been reflected in the growing number of translations across the world. The D Section of the Roberts and Poplawski bibliography listing translations of Lawrence’s works, combined with by Poplawski’s excellent supplement in the Journal of D.H. Lawrence Studies 2010, reveals a surprising number of translations. Ignoring anthologies containing other works by Lawrence, the bibliography lists a book of selected letters translated into French in two volumes in 1934 by Thérèse Aubray as Lettres Choisies (D56), and included the Huxley introduction. There was a further French translation in 2000 by André Topia (D72.85). In 1979 Elisabeth Schnack translated Richard Aldington’s 1950 Penguin Selected Letters (A87) into German as Briefe (D99.43). In 1942 there was an anonymous translation into Italian of Lawrence’s letters (D123.4). In 1934 Masanobu Oda produced a 235 page selection in Japanese (D143) and in 1985 Hirokazu Yoshimura et al. began producing translations of all the Cambridge Edition volumes of the Letters (D185.184), with a translation of the Cambridge Selected Letters published in 2011 (D185.900). The first published translation of Lawrence’s work into Korean was a selection of letters in 1954 (D186). In 1984 Zofia Sroczynska produced a selection of letters translated into Polish (D195.7). The first Spanish translation was published in Argentina in 1945, covering the whole of the Aldous Huxley edition and entitled Cartas (D236). A further selection was published in Mexico in 1986, translated by Marta Amorin and James Valender (D246.62).

10Secondly, having established the accelerating impetus to have all Lawrence’s letters published, as they were perceived by editors to be of such significance, I am going to move onto their reception. When reviewing some volumes of Lawrence letters in the Spring 1971 D.H. Lawrence Review, Harry T. Moore noted that: “Everyone knows that Lawrence was a great letter writer, usually as ‘’creative’’ in his correspondence as he was in his poetry and fiction (61).”

11I am not convinced that this was quite the case. The F Section of the Roberts and Poplawski bibliography, supplemented by Poplawski in the 2010 issue of the Journal of D.H. Lawrence Studies, lists approaching 800 books and pamphlets about Lawrence, increasingly on more peripheral areas of Lawrence studies. I can find none about the apparently obvious and mainstream topic of Lawrence as a letter-writer, a situation remedied only in 2012 by the publication of Joyjit Ghosh’s Imaging D.H. Lawrence: His Mind and Art in Letters. There are numerous articles on the subject, particularly reviews, in the D.H. Lawrence Review and elsewhere, of the Cambridge Edition volumes as they have become available. But the lack of book-length appreciations does not square with the reputation described earlier. Ghosh’s book, excluding the lengthy bibliography and index, runs only to about 150 pages, and as the title suggests, mainly focuses on the multiple selves appearing in the letters. If Lawrence is a letter-writer of this importance surely further and more comprehensive books on the subject are appropriate? Hopefully the Cambridge Edition will be a catalyst for much more to appear in print.

12I am now going to move on to a quantitative analysis of the letters. In so doing I have to make a big assumption that inevitably is not very scientific. That is that the letters we now have are a representative sample of what Lawrence wrote, at least in terms of the types of recipient and the split between male and female recipient. And when we talk of letters we include postcards, telegrams and any other similar communication, such as a note written on a calling card, and the substance of these as extracted from memoirs written by Lawrence’s correspondents where the manuscript is missing. We know that certain correspondences are completely or almost completely missing. For example, the only correspondence we have with Lawrence’s parents is a postcard to his mother dating from June 1905, yet we know that he wrote to her from Croydon every week for nearly two years (L1 1); similarly we only have one postcard addressed to Tom Smith, Lawrence’s close friend and fellow student at University College Nottingham. Agnes Holt, a fellow teacher in Croydon, whom Lawrence almost decided to marry in 1909 thought that she had destroyed all of her letters from Lawrence. Only one survives, slipped into a book that Lawrence had given to her. And in Jessie Chambers’ case we only have what can be extracted from her 1935 memoir, D.H. Lawrence: A Personal Record. Her husband recorded the fact that she burned the original letters. None of the many letters or postcards survive that Lawrence presumably sent to his oldest brother George, although presentation copies of his books do. And as Boulton notes in his Introduction to his 1996 Selected Letters of D.H. Lawrence, there are “some which are known to exist in private collections [that] have not yet been made available” (xxvii).

13To compile the statistics that follow I have created an Excel spreadsheet of all Lawrence’s published letters. This enables a simpler reckoning of the numbers involved than working though the volumes of the Cambridge Edition and the subsequent issues of the Journal of D.H. Lawrence Studies. The spreadsheet shows that, ignoring the letters to Lawrence included in Volume VIII of the Letters, it added about 120 letters in full or in more accurate texts than were published before. Including the just published 2014 issue, the Journal of D.H. Lawrence Studies has added 67 to that number, with each issue since the first in 2006 including unpublished letters. But it is increasingly unlikely that there will be a really substantial find of new ones.

14The spreadsheet shows that the correspondence with women is comfortably less than fifty percent of the total of 5721 letters. This may come as a surprise but of the male correspondents just eleven received a total of 1626 letters, approaching thirty percent. They are Lawrence’s friends Arthur McLeod and Kot, Lawrence’s agents J.B. Pinker, Robert Mountsier, Curtis Brown and Laurence Pollinger, Edward Garnett, literary adviser at Duckworths, and publishers Martin Secker, Thomas Seltzer, Charles Lahr and Pino Orioli. With the exception of Nancy Pearn, manager of the Magazine Department at Curtis Brown’ s London office, described by Lawrence as Curtis Brown’s “golden […] magazine girl” (vi. 459), the women receiving the highest number of letters were Lawrence’s family and, in the widest sense, friends.

15The schedule that I have provided shows all the women that Lawrence corresponded with who received more than a dozen letters. I have included in these figures letters received jointly with another person. Amongst the recipients of the biggest number of letters there will be no surprises. They include Lawrence’s sisters Ada Clarke and Emily King, and his longstanding friends Catherine Carswell and Lady Cynthia Asquith. We only have 29 letters to Frieda, to a certain extent reflecting their relatively few periods of separation, yet we have 51 to her sister Else Jaffe and 117 to her mother. As Frieda added to Lawrence’s letter to Juliette Huxley of 17th April 1928, “I am not a letterwriter” (L6 375), perhaps that explains the relatively few to her from Lawrence. He was well-intentioned though. As he wrote to her from Waldbröl in May 1912: “I try, I will always try, when I write to you, to write the truth as near the mark as I can get it. It frets me, for fear you are disappointed in me, and for fear you are too much hurt. But you are strong when necessary.” (L1 403)

16However, he kept up a regular correspondence with his mother-in-law, from at least January 1920 until not long before his death. As he wrote to her from Paris in February 1924, in one of his newsy letters:

So, Schwiegermutter, you know all that we’re doing, and travel beside us and with us. Such is life. We can go together, in spite of separation, and you can travel, travel, in spite of age. (L4 590)

17Other women, with whom he had the closest relationships, are well represented in this list. Jessie Chambers, Louie Burrows and Rosalind Baynes have fortunately left us correspondence to analyse.

18And what sort of conclusions do we expect to garner from a closer inspection of these letters? What are the hallmarks of Lawrence’s letters and in particular those to women? Boulton in his Introduction to his Selected Letters, in part retracing the steps of his article “D.H. Lawrence: Letter-Writer” in Renaissance and Modern Studies in 1985, comments on the lack of any sustained evaluation of Lawrence’s letters and provides his own, by his own admission, too brief analysis. He identifies five attributes of the correspondence, which I will examine in the context of Lawrence’s correspondence with women. Boulton first identifies spontaneity, quoting Catherine Carswell’s remark that Lawrence “wrote letters as he spoke [...]. They fairly flash with quick life” (xxviii). This can perhaps be done relatively straightforwardly with someone of similar background and views but he achieved it with those a of a wide variety of social and cultural backgrounds and education, from the Honourable Dorothy Brett, Lady Cynthia Asquith, Lady Ottoline Morrell and Baroness Anna von Richthofen to Giulia Pini, employed by Lawrence as a servant at Villa Mirenda, from Pulitzer prize-winning Amy Lowell and patron of the arts Caresse Crosby to post office clerk Blanche Jennings and tenant farmer’s daughter May Holbrook.

19Lawrence’s tenderness in his correspondence is regularly demonstrated in his lengthy correspondence with his mother-in-law, but more specifically in his letters of condolence. A particularly strong example of this is the letter that he wrote to Eva Rainusso in September 1915, just published in the Journal of D.H. Lawrence Studies. She was a teacher whom he knew from his stay in Fiascherino and Lawrence wrote about the loss of their maid at the time, Elide Fiori, and offering help to her mother Felice:

This morning Alessandro wrote to tell us that our Elide died on the 10th of February. The news is too cruel. My wife cries and cries but my heart suffers a sharp pain […]. It seems to me that there is a shadow of death in those steep and narrow streets […]. Tell me how poor Felice is, whether she needs anything, whether I can send her a little money. (JDHLS 3.3.8)

20Similarly powerful letters were written to Else Jaffe in October 1915 following the death of her son (L2 415), to Dollie Radford in March 1917 on the death of family friend Herbert Watson (L3 101), to Lawrence’s sister Emily in September 1924 on the death of their father (L5 124), to Mollie Skinner in August 1925 on the death of her brother (L5 292), to his sister Ada in February 1929 on the death of her father-in-law (L7 192) and to Caresse Crosby in January 1930 on the suicide of her husband (L7 634).

21The third attribute that Boulton identified was sensitivity to landscape and natural beauty, also to be widely found of course in his other writings. There are many examples describing wildlife and plants. This one describes the surroundings of Lawrence’s cottage near Fiascherino, where Elide Fiori was their maid. He wrote to Cynthia Asquith in October 1913:

But we’ve got an adorable place here: a little four - - a beautiful palazzina in large grounds, that descend in terraces to the sea – that’s the Italian for it. I call it a little, pink, four-roomed cottage in a big vine-garden, on the edge of a rocky bay […]. It is a lovely position – among the vines, a little pink house, just above a rocky bay of the Mediterranean. One goes down in a towel to bathe. And the water is warm and buoyant – it is jolly. I wish you could try it too. (L2 88)

22When so many critics struggle to find humour in Lawrence, it is a particular pleasure to provide examples of why they are wrong. Mark Kinkead-Weekes wrote at length on this in his essay “Humour in the Letters of D.H. Lawrence” in the 1996 essay collection Lawrence and Comedy. Boulton makes reference to this in the fourth attribute he describes, Lawrence’s witty presentation of human comedy. One of the best examples is Lawrence’s August 1917 letter to Esther Andrews, describing the awful concert put on by Meredith Starr in St Ives, which Lawrence had travelled from Zennor to see. Another is Lawrence’s partly mock rebuke for Cynthia Asquith’s folly in thinking that he and Frieda were blissfully happy, sent to her from Fiascherino in November 1913:

You say we’re happy – per Bacchino! If you but knew the thunderstorms of tragedy that have played over my wretched head, as if I was set up on God’s earth for a lightning conductor, you’d say, “thank God I am not as that poor man.” If you knew the slough of misery we’ve struggled and suffocated through, you’d stroke your counterpane with a purring motion, like an old maid having muffins for tea in the lamplight and reading Stanley in Africa. If ever you hear of me in a mad-house, and Frieda buried under a nameless sod, you’ll say, “Poor things, no wonder, with all they’ve gone through.” You talk about tears drowning the wind – my God. – We are the most unfortunate, agonised, fate-harassed mortals since Orestes and that gang. Don’t you forget it. Put away all illusions concerning us, and see the truth.’ (L2 107)

23And the final attribute that Boulton identifies is the fact that several styles could be deployed in the same letter, or to different correspondents when describing the same event. As Lawrence wrote to Louie Burrows in December 1910:

I wish you’d tell me which of my epistolary styles you prefer: the gay, the mocking, the ironic, the sad, the despairing, the elevated, the high romantic, the didactic, the emphatic, the bullying, the passionate, the disgraceful or the naïve, so that I can be consistent. (L1 217)

24And Lawrence’s use of the different styles that Boulton identified is part of establishing and developing his relationship with these female correspondents. Responding to his correspondents appropriately was important and that is why where possible it is better to see both sides of the correspondence, something that the Cambridge Edition provides, sometimes but not always. Lawrence was capable of close relationships with men and women, but the closest were with women, in particular of course Frieda. As he wrote to Ernest Collings in January 1913:

It is hopeless for me to try to do anything without I have a woman at the back of me […]. Böcklin – or somebody like him – daren’t sit in a café except with his back to the wall. I daren’t sit in the world without a woman behind me. (L1 503)

25There is then need for much further research in the context of the growing value attached to the correspondence, often as worthy of study as his other works. Taking into account the fact that most of Lawrence’s extensive business correspondence was with men, women received a large proportion of Lawrence’s non-business correspondence. They are particularly important in his fiction and what he says about them in his correspondence suggests that they were much more important than men as Muses. And for various reasons dedications of books by Lawrence were almost invariably in favour of women. Monographs examining sets of correspondence with individual correspondents, and where appropriate bringing into play the type of analysis Boulton suggested, will allow for greater focus on those relationships than is generally possible in a biography, particularly where the surviving correspondence is more extensive. Correspondence is particularly rewarding to study, because of the dialogue it necessarily reflects. The tables provided show that in many cases the correspondence is somewhat more extensive than might have been imagined. Breaks in correspondence can be significant too – the long break with Ottoline Morrell, and there was even one with his sister Ada whom he called his “one, real relative in the world” (L1 17) – there are only three letters between June 1913 and November 1919. Used with care, the way those correspondents were models for characters in Lawrence’s fiction may add an extra dimension to such research. Finally, little work has been done on the extent to which Lawrence provided presentation copies of his books to his correspondents, which may have been provided outside the period covered by the surviving correspondence. The extent to which he did so and the inscriptions in the books must surely be evidence in an examination of his correspondence?

26In conclusion, we have seen the development of our understanding of the significance of Lawrence’s correspondence, and of publishing all that is available, both letters from him and to him. His letters have been analysed in general terms to show the wide variety of voices Lawrence used, and the high quality of his letters. However, to get further benefit from them and to understand better the relationships with individual correspondents, studies should focus on series of letters to them using the techniques now learned about how Lawrence mastered his epistolary skills.

Top of page


Boulton, James T. “D.H. Lawrence: Letter Writer.” Renaissance and Modern Studies XXIX (1985): 86 - 100

Delany, Paul. ‘’’Giving Yourself Away’’: Lawrence’s Letters in Contex” in Editing D.H. Lawrence: New Versions of a Modern Author. Eds. Charles L. Ross and Dennis Jackson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995.

Donoghue, Denis. ‘’’Till the Fight is Finished’’: D.H. Lawrence in his letters.” in D.H. Lawrence: Novelist, Poet, Prophet. Ed. Stephen Spender. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.

Ellis, David. D.H. Lawrence: Dying Game 1922 – 1930. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Ghosh, Joyjit. Imaging D.H. Lawrence His Mind and Art in Letters. Delhi: Authorspress, 2012.

Kinkead-Weekes, Mark. D.H. Lawrence: Triumph to Exile 1912 – 1922. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Kinkead-Weekes, Mark. “Humour in the Letters of D.H. Lawrence.” In Lawrence and Comedy. Eds. Paul Eggert and John Worthen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Lawrence, D.H. The Letters of D.H. Lawrence Volume One: September 1901 – May 1913. Ed. James T. Boulton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Lawrence, D.H. The Letters of D.H. Lawrence Volume Two: June 1913 – October 1916. Ed. George J. Zytaruk and James T. Boulton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Lawrence, D.H. The Letters of D.H. Lawrence Volume Three October 1916 – June 1921. Ed. James T. Boulton and Andrew Robertson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Lawrence, D.H. The Letters of D.H. Lawrence Volume Four June 1921 – March 1924. Ed. Warren Roberts James T. Boulton and Elizabeth Mansfield. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Lawrence, D.H. The Letters of D.H. Lawrence Volume Five March 1924 – March 1927. Ed. James T. Boulton and Lindeth Vasey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Lawrence, D.H. The Letters of D.H. Lawrence Volume Six March 1927 – November 1928. Ed. James T. Boulton and Margaret Boulton with Gerald M. Lacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Lawrence, D.H. The Letters of D.H. Lawrence Volume Seven November 1928 – March 1930. Ed. Keith Sagar and James T. Boulton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993

Lawrence, D.H. The Letters of D.H. Lawrence Volume Eight. Ed. James T. Boulton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Panichas, George A. “D.H. Lawrence: the Hero as Letter Writer.” In The Spirit of D.H. Lawrence: Centenary Studies. Eds. Gamini Salgado and G.K. Das. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988.

Poplawski, Paul. “A Bibliography of D.H. Lawrence,” Third Edition (2001), By Warren Roberts and Paul Poplawski: Corrections, Additions and Updates to Section A and Section F.’ Journal of D.H. Lawrence Studies. 2, 2, 2010: 17 – 89.

Roberts, Warren and Paul Poplawski. A Bibliography of D.H. Lawrence. Third Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Worthen, John. D.H. Lawrence: The Early Years 1885 – 1912. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Top of page


Electronic reference

Jonathan Long, « D.H. Lawrence’s Female Correspondents: a First Study of His Correspondence with Them »Études Lawrenciennes [Online], 49 | 2019, Online since 01 April 2019, connection on 30 November 2020. URL:; DOI:

Top of page

About the author

Jonathan Long

Jonathan Long is a solicitor advising farming clients in the East of England. He graduated in Law at the University of London in 1981. He has been a Lawrence enthusiast for over 35 years (with a particular interest in Lawrence’s biography and bibliography), and is a member of the D H Lawrence Societies of England, North America and Australia. He is a regular contributor to the Newsletter and to the Journal of the D H Lawrence Society in England and has delivered papers there. He is also a contributor to the Journal of the D H Lawrence Society of Australia. At the Arras conference in 2012 he delivered a paper entitled D. H. Lawrence and Book Publication During the Great War: a Study in Stagnation.


By this author

Top of page


Licence Creative Commons
Études lawrenciennes est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Top of page
  • Logo Presses universitaires de Paris Ouest
  • Logo Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense
  • Logo DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
  • OpenEdition Journals
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search