Macaulay
writes: “Many words, many phrases, seem to acquire nimbuses of association,
which do rough service for exact meaning.” The language sickness she diagnoses carries
fewer political implications than George Orwell’s muddier and more influential essay,
“Politics and the English Language” (1946). Macaulay could almost be reporting on
the way we hear people speak daily in 2013: “…the vague and rhetorical use of
phrases and ideas which carry with them certain associations in the mind of the
user, and which will, he trusts, carry across similar associations to the
hearer or reader.” In short: “you know.” Referring to the “verbal haloes” used
by the litterateurs of the late nineteenth-century (and, we might add, today),
Macaulay writes:
“Most
of the better writers of verse and prose, in all countries, seek more or less
after precision, and have gained in truth what they have perhaps lost in
loveliness. Claptrap, facile and inaccurate symbolism, the repetition of the tag
and the slogan, are to be found mainly just now in third-rate literature, in
popular speech, and in the less educated press. In these places one finds, on a
lower plane, the same intention - the lazy and sentimental desire to convey an
effect by using catchwords.”
I
found Macaulay’s essay in a brown first edition titled The Hogarth Essays, published in 1928 by Doubleday, Doran &
Company. The originals were issued as pamphlets beginning in 1924 by Leonard
and Virginia Woolf and their Hogarth Press. The lineup represents an All-Star
team of Anglophone Modernism – three essays by T.S. Eliot published
collectively under the title Homage to
John Dryden; E.M. Forster; such lesser lights as Roger Fry, Herbert Read and
Logan Pearsall Smith; Robert Graves; and unreadable contributions by Virginia
Woolf and Gertrude Stein (“It is very likely that nearly every one has been
very nearly certain that something this is interesting is interesting them,” stammers
Stein.) The ringer in the bunch is “HenryJames at Work,” by Theodora Bosanquet, the novelist’s chief amanuensis from
1907 until his death in 1916. Her devotion to a writer devoted only to his Muse
is touching. She’s also drily funny:
“Many
men whose prime business is the art of writing find rest and refreshment in
other occupations. They marry or they keep dogs, they play golf or bridge, they
study Sanskrit or collect postage stamps. Except for a period of ownership of a
dachshund [Max], Henry James did none of these things. He lived a life consecrated to
the service of a jealous, insatiable, and supremely rewarding goddess, and all
his activities had essential reference to that service.”
Bosanquet,
author of a fine monograph devoted to Paul Valéry (1933), understands
James better than many of his critics:
“The
essential fact is that wherever he looked Henry James saw fineness apparently sacrificed
to grossness, beauty to avarice, truth to a bold front. He realized how
constantly the tenderness of growing life is at the mercy of personal tyranny [Washington Square, The Portrait of a Lady, What
Maisie Knew, etc.] and he hated the tyranny of persons over each other. His
novels are a repeated exposure of this wickedness, a reiterated and passionate
plea for the fullest freedom of development, unimperilled by reckless and
barbarous stupidity.”
No comments:
Post a Comment