“Most
adults...are at least friendly to childhood and to children. With a benevolent
eye they watch their gambols, are amused at their primitive oddities, give what
they suppose to be the countersign, and depart. A few take children as they
take one another, just as they come, welcome them for what they are, refrain
from making advances, and are gladly admitted on these terms into the
confraternity. The very few—as few in books as in life—have the equivalent of what
the born gardener is blessed with—a green thumb. He can pluck up a plant and
without the least danger examine its roots. However delicate his specimen may
be, his cloistered wizardry will succeed in bringing it into flower.”
De la Mare
frequently skirts sentimentality, the obvious risk a writer runs when writing
about children. But sentimentality is merely the obverse of contempt, a quality
almost absent in de la Mare. He likes kids, often understands them, and would
seem to enjoy their company. He accepts that some children are nearly as rotten
as adults. He devotes a chapter to “Bullies,” a familiar feature of every
childhood (and adulthood) from every era, a type as abidingly human as liars
and thieves. He begins: “Queer-looking or eccentric children, of looks or ways,
that is, not acceptable to their contemporaries—long noses, shock-hair,
`carrots,’ prominent ears, tallow skin, the knock-kneed, the bow-legged, the
splay-footed—are liable to a preliminary handicap.” In our newly sensitive era,
we’re not supposed to notice that some people, including children, are peculiar
or unpleasant looking. We’ve outgrown all that. After he notes that Oliver Goldsmith was “jeered at for his ugliness,” de la Mare continues:
“Charles
Lamb was in this respect, at least, an exception. He had a peculiar plantigrade
walk, eyes differing in colour, and what has become the most famous stutter in
literature. But he was also amiable, sensible and keenly observant, and was indulged
on account of his stutter by both boys and masters.”
De la Mare
senses a kinship with Lamb, another benevolent, child-like soul (a sort that
shows up frequently in English literary history), though childless and a
lifelong bachelor. The letters and Elia essays are laced with children and childhood
memories. As a boy he attended Christ’s Hospital in Newgate Street, where he
befriended Coleridge. In “Christ’s Hospital Five-and-Thirty Years Ago,” he
describes the whipping of a boy by a master, “after
the old Roman fashion, long and stately.” Lamb is neither bitter nor nostalgic,
and even corporal punishment, justly applied or not, is chronicled with a hint
of comedy:
“These
solemn pageantries were not played off so often as to spoil the general mirth
of the community. We had plenty of exercise and recreation after school hours; and, for
myself, I must confess, that I was never happier, than in them.”
In his
description of Lamb, de la Mare borrows “plantigrade” from zoology and anatomy.
The term refers to mammals (bears, badgers, raccoons) that walk on the soles of
their feet. In Origin of the Species,
Darwin refers in passing to “the plantigrades or bear family.” They are distinguished
from mammals (cats, dogs, weasels, mongooses, ballet dancers) that walk on their
toes and are known as “digitigrades.” The word evolved a more mundane meaning
in the human realm: flat-footed. A school mate of Lamb’s, Valentine La Grice,
told the essayist’s friend and biographer Thomas Talfourd (Final Memorials of Charles Lamb, 1849-50):
“Lamb was
an amiable, gentle boy, very sensitive and keenly observing, indulged by his
schoolfellows and by his master on account of his infirmity of speech. His
countenance was mild, his complexion clear brown, with an expression which
might lead you to think that he was of Jewish descent. His eyes were not each
of the same colour, one was hazel, the other had specks of grey in the iris,
mingled as we see red spots in the bloodstone. His step was plantigrade, which
made his walk slow and peculiar, adding to the staid appearance of his figure.”
No comments:
Post a Comment