This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/nov/21/sodomys-low-profile-in-lady-chatterley-trial
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Sodomy’s low profile in Lady Chatterley trial | Sodomy’s low profile in Lady Chatterley trial |
| (about 1 month later) | |
| In 1960, heterosexual sodomy was illegal. But it was central to the plot of the third version of Lady Chatterley’s Lover that was on trial at the Old Bailey for being obscene. Oddly, the prosecution counsel, Griffith-Jones, made only a slight reference to it, saying, somewhat unfortunately: “Not very easy, sometimes, not very easy, you know, to know what in fact he is driving at in that passage.” | In 1960, heterosexual sodomy was illegal. But it was central to the plot of the third version of Lady Chatterley’s Lover that was on trial at the Old Bailey for being obscene. Oddly, the prosecution counsel, Griffith-Jones, made only a slight reference to it, saying, somewhat unfortunately: “Not very easy, sometimes, not very easy, you know, to know what in fact he is driving at in that passage.” |
| In his commentary on the 50th anniversary edition of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, in 2010, Geoffrey Robertson QC, who wrote your obituary of Lord Hutchinson of Lullington (15 November), wrote that “Ignorant of the facts as well as of the facts of life, Griffith-Jones failed even to recognise Lawrence’s paean to anal sex.” According to Robertson, “Under the 1959 Act, purple passages, even on the subject of heterosexual buggery (still the ‘abominable crime’), no longer necessarily meant a guilty verdict. Jurors had to ask themselves the commonsense question of whether publication as a whole would do any harm, and if so, whether its literary merit might redeem it.” But the point is, this was not tested in the trial. No witnesses were examined on the issue and it is not clear how many understood they were defending a book that centred not only on promiscuity, adultery and the use of particular words, but on illegal acts that could draw severe prison sentences. | In his commentary on the 50th anniversary edition of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, in 2010, Geoffrey Robertson QC, who wrote your obituary of Lord Hutchinson of Lullington (15 November), wrote that “Ignorant of the facts as well as of the facts of life, Griffith-Jones failed even to recognise Lawrence’s paean to anal sex.” According to Robertson, “Under the 1959 Act, purple passages, even on the subject of heterosexual buggery (still the ‘abominable crime’), no longer necessarily meant a guilty verdict. Jurors had to ask themselves the commonsense question of whether publication as a whole would do any harm, and if so, whether its literary merit might redeem it.” But the point is, this was not tested in the trial. No witnesses were examined on the issue and it is not clear how many understood they were defending a book that centred not only on promiscuity, adultery and the use of particular words, but on illegal acts that could draw severe prison sentences. |
| In 2015 Thomas Grant wrote in Jeremy Hutchinson’s Case Histories that “Jeremy was fully alive to the meaning of the passage, and raised it as a potential stumbling block at a pre-trial conference with Gerald Gardiner and Penguin’s principal witnesses … They all three dismissed Jeremy’s fears as unfounded … the important thing, as Jeremy put it, was that Griffith-Jones ‘didn’t twig it’.” And so the law progressed. The 2001 film Bridget Jones’s Diary was probably the first to celebrate the legalisation of heterosexual sodomy in a scene between Bridget and Daniel.Sue RoffCellardyke, Fife | In 2015 Thomas Grant wrote in Jeremy Hutchinson’s Case Histories that “Jeremy was fully alive to the meaning of the passage, and raised it as a potential stumbling block at a pre-trial conference with Gerald Gardiner and Penguin’s principal witnesses … They all three dismissed Jeremy’s fears as unfounded … the important thing, as Jeremy put it, was that Griffith-Jones ‘didn’t twig it’.” And so the law progressed. The 2001 film Bridget Jones’s Diary was probably the first to celebrate the legalisation of heterosexual sodomy in a scene between Bridget and Daniel.Sue RoffCellardyke, Fife |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |
| DH Lawrence | DH Lawrence |
| Sex | Sex |
| Crime | Crime |
| letters | letters |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |