This
comes not from a biography of the twenty-sixth president of the United States
but from Scott Donaldson’s Edwin
Arlington Robinson: A Poet’s Life (2007). Donaldson is retelling the
familiar story of how, in 1904, Kermit Roosevelt, the president’s son, brought Robinson’s
second poetry collection, The Children of
the Night (1897), to his father’s attention. TR persuaded Charles
Scribner’s Sons to republish the volume, and reviewed it himself in Outlook magazine. Roosevelt got
Robinson’s name wrong ("Edwin," not “Edward”), but he rightly detected “an undoubted
touch of genius” in the poems. Roosevelt arranged for Robinson to receive a
sinecure at the New York Customs House, with a $2,000 annual stipend. In 1910,
Robinson repaid the debt by dedicating his next collection of poems, The Town Down the River, to the former
president.
Roosevelt
wasn’t being strictly altruistic. He was the only American president who, for
significant periods, lived as a professional writer, earning much of his living
with his pen. He understood the teetering balancing act the writing life might pose for
a poet like Robinson. But Roosevelt also had good taste in literature
(though he did favor the almost unreadable Jack London), and he had the interests of
his country at heart. We might think of him as a literary patriot with an open
mind (he loved Gibbon). The president writes about Robinson in a 1905 letter to
James Hulme Canfield (Theodore Roosevelt:
Letters and Speeches, Library of America, 2004): “. . . –I hunted him up,
found he was having a very hard time, and put him in the Treasury Department. I
think he will do his work all right, but I am free to say that he was put in less
with a view to the good of the government service than with a view to helping
American letters.”
In
1903, Roosevelt made his literary tastes explicit in a letter to the president
of Columbia University, Nicholas Murray Butler. He fills three pages with a
list of the books he has read over the previous two years, including Herodotus,
Plutarch, Dante, Shakespeare, Keats, Browning and Carlyle. At the end of his list,
Roosevelt writes:
“There!
that is the catalogue; about as interesting as Homer’s Catalogue of the Ships,
and with about as much method in it as there seems in a superficial glance to
be in an Irish stew. The great comfort, old man, is that you need not read it
and that you need not answer this!”
Dedicated,
unpretentious, pleasure-driven reading remains a theme across Roosevelt’s life,
most memorably articulated in Theodore
Roosevelt, an Autobiography (1913):
“Books
are almost as individual as friends. There is no earthly use in laying down
general laws about them. Some meet the needs of one person, and some of
another; and each person should beware of the booklover's besetting sin, of
what Mr. Edgar Allan Poe calls `the mad pride of intellectuality,’ taking the
shape of arrogant pity for the man who does not like the same kind of books.”
That
characterizes nine-tenths of book chat in general and an even greater proportion
of the blogosphere’s bookish precincts. Later in the same paragraph Roosevelt
writes: “Personally, the books by which I have profited infinitely more than by
any others have been those in which profit was a by-product of the pleasure;
that is, I read them because I enjoyed them, because I liked reading them, and
the profit came in as part of the enjoyment.”
Here
he echoes Dr. Johnson, who is quoted by Boswell as saying: “. . . what we read
with inclination makes a much stronger impression. If we read without
inclination, half the mind is employed in fixing the attention; so there is but
one half to be employed on what we read.” And Roosevelt, bless him, found
Dickens a confounding irritant. In a letter to his son Kermit in 1908 he
writes:
“.
. . he had himself a thick streak of maudlin sentimentality of the kind that,
as somebody phrased it, `made him wallow naked in the pathetic.’ It always
interests me about Dickens to think how much first-class work he did and how
almost all of it was mixed up with every kind of cheap, second-rate matter. I
am very fond of him. There are innumerable characters that he has created which
symbolize vices, virtues, follies, and the like almost as well as the
characters in Bunyan; and therefore I think the wise thing to do is simply to
skip the bosh and twaddle and vulgarity and untruth, and get the benefit out of
the rest.”
[Here
is a marvelous portrait of Roosevelt the reader and dog lover, taken in
Colorado in 1905.]
No comments:
Post a Comment