Some of us
still do. It’s a pastime simplified by the coming of the digital age. I’m not
always convinced I’ve read something until I’ve transcribed a choice passage or
two. That’s the purpose of a commonplace book or “table book,” as George
Saintsbury calls it in his introduction to A Calendar of Verse (1892). The practical reason for keeping such a sampler
is future reference. Often I discover passages I know will come in handy. It
also serves as an act of homage. When I copy a sentence by Johnson or Nabokov,
I’m expressing in a small way my gratitude for a writer’s labor.
Saintsbury’s
volume is a relic of another age. At 5.5 inches by 4.5 inches, the book is
squarish and compact, with a beige cover and gilt lettering – a gift book. The
publisher is Rivingtons of London. In his introduction, Saintsbury refers to
his anthology as “this poetical ephemeris.” A different English poet is
assigned to each of the twelve months: Shakespeare, Spenser, Coleridge, Herrick,
Shelley, William Morris, Keats, Byron, Campion, Scott, Wordsworth and Milton, respectively. Of
course, tastes change. Few of us read Morris or Scott. Shakespeare is inevitable.
Herrick and Campion are inspired choices. The taste reflected is late-Victorian,
pre-Modernist. No Donne or Herbert. The Byron selection is heavily weighted toward
Childe Harolde’s Pilgrimage; nothing
from Don Juan.
Some of
Saintsbury’s critical readings in the introduction are worthy of attention. He “gets” Coleridge:
“No doubt it is right and proper that there should be complete editions of his
poetical works; but to read those poetical works as a whole, and ‘straight on,’
must always be a task both ascetic and athletic. Except ‘The Ancient Mariner’
and a very few others, there is no piece of Coleridge’s which is good as a
whole.” True but seldom acknowledged. Sadly, Coleridge the man is often more
interesting than his work, and he was a junkie. Saintsbury notes his juxtaposition of Coleridge and
Herrick in March and April:
“In passing
from Coleridge to Herrick the change is perhaps greater and more remarkable
than in any other pair of poets in any language, irrespective of date and
style; or, rather, the change of date impresses itself almost to the neglect of
the change of style. . . .I do not know why opium should be allowed a privilege
which is denied to sack and Julia.”
2 comments:
My ignorance obsesses me: who’s “”Julia”?
The fictional female muse of Herrick. He wrote many poems to and about her. And since I'm commenting, let's not be too harsh on Coleridge! His poems still stand as some of the greatest of his time; 'Lewti' is too little known. Call it a small group, sure, but it really isn't much less than Keats or Byron at their best. Besides he was undoubtedly the genius of the age as his notebooks and prose writings display. The damn bastard just couldn't stick to one thing! The man is, indeed, so much more interesting.
Post a Comment